The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,
Harry Hope
From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
James Hoggan talks about global warming
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor
In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
human-induced climate change.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-warming-skepticism-is-fueled-by-public-relations-author-says
The goal of this PR campaign:
to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases, and to allow oil
and coal companies to continue reaping record profits.
The authors equate the tactics in this "coverup" to those employed by
tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
For instance, one major climate skeptic organization, the Heartland
Institute, hosts a "smoker's lounge," billed as "the place to go for
sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues."
The message:
smoking is not as bad for you as you've been led to believe.
It's been unfairly and unduly demonized by "left-liberal" interests
bent on quashing the true libertarian spirit of the nation.
By now, not many Americans buy this argument, even those who smoke.
Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
doctor.
Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
That drives the point home in a very real way.
But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
issue of human-induced climate change.
One poll conducted in October by the Pew Research Center found that
the percentage of Americans who believe that there's evidence global
warming is happening shrank from 71 percent in 2008 to 57 percent this
year.
A more recent ABC-Washington Post poll found a slightly smaller, but
nonetheless significant drop � from 80 to 72 percent.
One of the more notable aspects is how the belief in human-induced
climate change has become a partisan issue.
The drop among Republicans and independents is more precipitous than
among Democrats.
The Pew poll found that 75 percent of Democrats believe in global
warming, compared to 83 percent last year.
But only 53 percent of independents believe, compared to 75 percent
perviously.
And just 35 percent of Republicans believe, as opposed to 49 percent
last year.
Hoggan argues that these numbers represent a PR coup, a campaign that
he says has succeeded in politicizing science.
Previous issues, such as worries over ozone depletion from CFCs in the
1980s and '90s, never became partisan.
The world addressed the problem in a relatively expedient fashion.
Not so with the rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
We asked Hoggan why he thought public opinion on climate-related
issues has been so easy to manipulate, especially during a period when
scientists have become ever more certain that human activity is
changing Earth's climate.
Here are his responses, somewhat edited, to this and other questions:
A:
We are too easy to manipulate.
There are a number of reasons for that.
Two of the most important reasons are:
the media are quite easy to manipulate; and we also don't take the
time to understand many of the issues of the day.
People are busy.
And people have a lot of problems that they're facing.
So I think there's a limited capacity to be worried about issues.
I also think that people are kind of worn out by public relations
spin.
They have become very cynical and mistrustful.
There are many people who just see science as another point of view.
They don't see it as removed from belief and faith as people more
familiar with science would see it.
That's a scientific literacy issue.
And once you politicize science to the point that it's partisan, then
the meaning of what you're talking about, in this case the science of
heat-trapping gases leading to changes in Earth's climate, takes on a
complex worldview and emotional commitment that far exceeds just the
science.
The science turns into a threat to a world view, or to democracy and
what the US should stand for.
Then it becomes a highly emotionally-charged issue that has nothing to
do with science.
Q:
Is there an asymmetry between the two camps � scientists trying to
inform policymakers and the public about humanity's impact on climate
on one side, and the PR campaign you describe arguing that humanity's
impact on climate is minimal or nonexistent, and that doing anything
to curb fossil fuel is impractical and will destroy the economy on the
other?
A:
I think the advantage here is in the skeptics' court on a number of
fronts.
One reason is the enormous amount of money that has gone into doing
basic research on framing the issue and messaging.
That information gets passed around and amplified.
You have a network to create an echo chamber, and you can do it over a
couple of decades � especially when you're only trying to sell doubt.
You're not trying to get people to change their way of life, or learn
more, like environmentalists, who need to think about this issue, and
think about options.
I'm inclined as an average person to not have any more to worry about.
If there's an easy answer when there's a big problem � in this case,
that the science is full of doubt so action isn't warranted � and I've
already got a lot on my plate, then I'm inclined to accept the
skeptics' message.
The situation is suited to people who are up to mischief.
Q:
What can people do?
A:
The reason we wrote this book is that we feel we understand the public
relations behind the campaign and the public's growing confusion on
the issue.
One of the things that solves the problem of being manipulated is
awareness.
Deceit loses its power when people become aware of it.
So we, as citizens, need to demand more of ourselves, of the media we
read, and we need to stop either manipulating public opinion, or being
manipulated by it.
Creating awareness is the first step.
____________________________________________________
Harry
Claudius Denk
> From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
> By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> Monitor
>
> In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
> human-induced climate change.
The goal of the "extensive public relations campaign" of us skeptics
is to expose AGW as a fraud which itself is the result of an
"extensive public relations campaign" that conceals the truth about
the lack of scientific support of AGW.
One extensive public relations campaign vs. another. Why would you
expect anything different?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-wa...
>
> The goal of this PR campaign:
>
> to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
> contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,
Yes.
> and to allow oil
> and coal companies to continue reaping record profits.
BS. Why would we care about this?
>
> The authors equate the tactics in this "coverup" to those employed by
> tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
Back atcha.
>
> Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
> campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
Who cares.
>
> For instance, one major climate skeptic organization, the Heartland
> Institute, hosts a "smoker's lounge," billed as "the place to go for
> sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues."
Yeah, so?
>
> The message:
>
> smoking is not as bad for you as you've been led to believe.
Wrong issue. If AGW stood on it's own merits you would have no need
for this desperation tactic.
>
> It's been unfairly and unduly demonized by "left-liberal" interests
> bent on quashing the true libertarian spirit of the nation.
>
> By now, not many Americans buy this argument, even those who smoke.
>
> Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
> Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
> health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
> doctor.
>
> Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
> afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
>
> That drives the point home in a very real way.
>
> But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
> the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
> issue of human-induced climate change.
>
> One poll conducted in October by the Pew Research Center found that
> the percentage of Americans who believe that there's evidence global
> warming is happening shrank from 71 percent in 2008 to 57 percent this
> year.
It's going to continue to shrink. People see through the kind of
whacko arguments you are presenting here.
>
> A more recent ABC-Washington Post poll found a slightly smaller, but
> nonetheless significant drop — from 80 to 72 percent.
>
> One of the more notable aspects is how the belief in human-induced
> climate change has become a partisan issue.
Gee, do ya think.
>
> The drop among Republicans and independents is more precipitous than
> among Democrats.
>
> The Pew poll found that 75 percent of Democrats believe in global
> warming, compared to 83 percent last year.
>
> But only 53 percent of independents believe, compared to 75 percent
> perviously.
>
> And just 35 percent of Republicans believe, as opposed to 49 percent
> last year.
>
> Hoggan argues that these numbers represent a PR coup, a campaign that
> he says has succeeded in politicizing science.
Yep. We got you whackos on the run.
>
> Previous issues, such as worries over ozone depletion from CFCs in the
> 1980s and '90s, never became partisan.
>
> The world addressed the problem in a relatively expedient fashion.
>
> Not so with the rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
Yeah, I think you missed your window of opportunity about three or
four years ago. You've been fighting an uphill battle ever since. It
was apparent Copenhagen would be a bust even before climategate. The
ozone hole (CFC) scam, with its relatively modest reach into the
taxpayer's pockets, should have been the model you followed. You got
greedy. You blew it. Let that be a lesson to you envirofraudsters to
cash in your chips while the getting is good
>
> We asked Hoggan why he thought public opinion on climate-related
> issues has been so easy to manipulate, especially during a period when
> scientists have become ever more certain that human activity is
> changing Earth's climate.
>
> Here are his responses, somewhat edited, to this and other questions:
>
> A:
>
> We are too easy to manipulate.
On this we agree.
>
> There are a number of reasons for that.
>
> Two of the most important reasons are:
>
> the media are quite easy to manipulate; and we also don't take the
> time to understand many of the issues of the day.
Andy Revkin and his cohorts are perfect examples.
>
> People are busy.
>
> And people have a lot of problems that they're facing.
>
> So I think there's a limited capacity to be worried about issues.
>
> I also think that people are kind of worn out by public relations
> spin.
>
> They have become very cynical and mistrustful.
>
> There are many people who just see science as another point of view.
>
> They don't see it as removed from belief and faith as people more
> familiar with science would see it.
>
> That's a scientific literacy issue.
>
> And once you politicize science to the point that it's partisan, then
> the meaning of what you're talking about, in this case the science of
> heat-trapping gases leading to changes in Earth's climate, takes on a
> complex worldview and emotional commitment that far exceeds just the
> science.
The thing that defeated AGW more than anything else was conceptual
clarity. AGW fraudsters failed to fully obscure the science. This
gave skeptics a leg up in further expose the fraud.
>
> The science turns into a threat to a world view, or to democracy and
> what the US should stand for.
>
> Then it becomes a highly emotionally-charged issue that has nothing to
> do with science.
>
> Q:
>
> Is there an asymmetry between the two camps — scientists trying to
> inform policymakers and the public about humanity's impact on climate
> on one side, and the PR campaign you describe arguing that humanity's
> impact on climate is minimal or nonexistent, and that doing anything
> to curb fossil fuel is impractical and will destroy the economy on the
> other?
>
> A:
>
> I think the advantage here is in the skeptics' court on a number of
> fronts.
>
> One reason is the enormous amount of money that has gone into doing
> basic research on framing the issue and messaging.
Skeptic funding is a drop in the bucket compared to AGW funding. The
AGW alarmist had/have their hands in the deepest pocket on this
planet, the american government.
Obama's Nobel prize should be shared by all the taxpayer. Afterall,
we're the ones that paid for it.
>
> That information gets passed around and amplified.
>
> You have a network to create an echo chamber, and you can do it over a
> couple of decades — especially when you're only trying to sell doubt.
>
> You're not trying to get people to change their way of life, or learn
> more, like environmentalists, who need to think about this issue, and
> think about options.
>
> I'm inclined as an average person to not have any more to worry about.
> If there's an easy answer when there's a big problem — in this case,
> that the science is full of doubt so action isn't warranted — and I've
> already got a lot on my plate, then I'm inclined to accept the
> skeptics' message.
>
> The situation is suited to people who are up to mischief.
Kettle, pot, bang!
>
> Q:
>
> What can people do?
>
> A:
>
> The reason we wrote this book is that we feel we understand the public
> relations behind the campaign and the public's growing confusion on
> the issue.
>
> One of the things that solves the problem of being manipulated is
> awareness.
>
> Deceit loses its power when people become aware of it.
>
> So we, as citizens, need to demand more of ourselves, of the media we
> read, and we need to stop either manipulating public opinion, or being
> manipulated by it.
>
> Creating awareness is the first step.
I think climategate was more awareness than you can handle. Are you
sure you want more?
leona...@gmail.com
> From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> James Hoggan talks about global warming
< snipped more bullshit from: James Hoggan,
co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com>
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Jan 1, 1:53 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> > James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
BTW - My father died @61 from smoking
(cardiac disease). My mother died from cancer
never smoked a day in her life.
7
>
> F
Why do you keep ranting across so many newsgroups the same old crap?
CRU emails has proven for all AGW holowarming crap is fabricated.
They need to be prosecuted for stealing public money.
Why don't you upload all *YOUR* emails so that we can decide
what you are trying to sell?
Holowarming is a hoax
---------------------
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
It is the billions of liters of water in the form
of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
and thats why there is so much of it about.
The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
become a major factor to global warming.
They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
to carry heat around the globe.
The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous methods.
A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover) around, despite
all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
around the planet is carried by water vapor.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
crap artist in need of some urgent education.
*us*
Thanks for posting that.
Even the most desperate denialist can't dispute it.
Paul Linzden
> Harry Hope wrote:
>
> > F
>
> Why do you keep ranting across so many newsgroups the same old crap?
>
> CRU emails has proven for all AGW holowarming crap is fabricated.
> They need to be prosecuted for stealing public money.
Hardly. And only in the view of paranoid kooks like you who have no
academic standing and no credentials.
We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization,
over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate
science researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing columnists, and
your own paranoia.
>
> Why don't you upload all *YOUR* emails so that we can decide
> what you are trying to sell?
More paranoia.
How about you? Or are you above this?
>
> Holowarming is a hoax
More paranoia.
> ---------------------
>
> It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
> sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
> from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
More paranoia.
>
> Its become a means to an end.
More paranoia.
>
> Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
> kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
> we live without any scientific or material proof.
> Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
More paranoia. Holowarming? Sounds like Holocaust. You're also a
Holocaust denier!
> The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
Ah! A goosestepping fascist as well. Burn any books lately?
>
> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> and thats why there is so much of it about.
Junk science - you don't even have grip on the facts.
>
> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
> DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
> become a major factor to global warming.
> They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
> to carry heat around the globe.
> The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
> a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
> calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
> and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous methods.
>
> A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
> in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover) around, despite
> all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
> around the planet is carried by water vapor.
>
More of the usual denier gibberish. As usual, you have no data, just
your wild conspiracy theories and wacky opinions.
Paul Linzden
> >From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:
> >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> >James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
> >By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> >Monitor
>
> >In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> >authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> >Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> >say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
> >human-induced climate change.
Save for a few paranoid clowns, rednecks and Limbaugh worshipers.
tunderbar
> From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
> By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> Monitor
>
> In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
From "deniers" to "crusaders". What's going to be the next chosen ad
hominem?
Last Post
> On Jan 2, 8:04 am, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > Why do you keep ranting across so many newsgroups the same old crap?
>
> > CRU emails has proven for all AGW holowarming crap is fabricated.
> > They need to be prosecuted for stealing public money.
>
> Hardly. And only in the view of paranoid kooks like you who have no
> academic standing and no credentials.
• ROTFLMAO
Can you prove that bit of fascist bullshit?
You can shovel all the bullshit you like, and
add all the paranoid kook groups so you will
not see any argument because you have
nothing to prove you stupid posture
> We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization,
> over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate
> science researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing columnists, and
> your own paranoia.
•You have nothing— ZERO — None of 'your'
papers have passed proper peer review. Not
one could pass 95% confidence even with the
fudged data. Every one of 'your' climate
science researchers is 1- worried about his
funding and is forced to only research what-ifs.
2- Last week I read a paper from a team in a
very prestigious school, that any 7th grade
pupil would find comedic, and yet it is in a
journal attributed to global warming As for the
Academies, they are run by and for bureaucrats.
I remember when 2 heads of such academies
presumed to castigate a Congressman for asking,
Michael Mann, at a hearing, to show the product
of the work they had funded.
>
> > Why don't you upload all *YOUR* emails so that we can decide
> > what you are trying to sell?
>
> More paranoia.
• That is the first truth you have posted.
You are selling paranoia. LOL
> > Holowarming is a hoax
> > It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
> > sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
> > from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
>
> > Its become a means to an end.
>
> > Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
> > kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
> > we live without any scientific or material proof.
> > Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
>
> More paranoia. Holowarming? Sounds like Holocaust. You're
> also a Holocaust denier!
>
> Ah! A goosestepping fascist as well. Burn any books lately?
• No! Lindzen, you are the "goosestepping"
fascist and you have confirmed that in the
3 lines above
>
> > 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> > It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> > of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> > and that's why there is so much of it about.
>
> Junk science - you don't even have grip on the facts.
>
• Sorry fool, you have provided a lot of defensive
fascist propaganda lines but not one line of
science
>
> > The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
> > DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
> > become a major factor to global warming.
> > They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
> > to carry heat around the globe.
> > The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
> > a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
> > calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
> > and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous methods.
>
> > A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
> > in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover) around, despite
> > all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
> > around the planet is carried by water vapor.
>
> More of the usual denier gibberish. As usual, you have no data, just
> your wild conspiracy theories and wacky opinions.
• So where_is_'your'_data?????
I M @ good guy
Dispute what, the total lack of science or
discussion of the ordinary eccentricities of a
young data set?
Not getting as cold on the first cloudy
night on that "day of the year" can not be
correctly called "warming", it is a simple
and ordinary data attribute.
People who don't lie or spin facts into
something they are not do not call "not
getting as cold" by the misnomer Warming.
*us*
>...fascist bullshit...
Why do you want people to suffer for corporations?
*us*
> Dispute what, the total lack of science ...
The denier does, indeed, totally lack science.
*us*
>On Jan 2, 8:04�am, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> Harry Hope wrote:
>> > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:
>> >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>> ... keep ranting across so many newsgroups the same old crap...
Well said. Deserved better subject line, and got it.
*us*
Ha! They whine, but they have no data.
leona...@gmail.com
> Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
> Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
> health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
> doctor.
• Ssssuurrre. My doctor once told me I should
stop smoking when he sucking on a very large
havana cigar
>
> Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
> afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
>
> That drives the point home in a very real way.
>
> But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
> the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
> issue of human-induced climate change.
• There is good reason for that. the cancer trust
is invested in selling cancer as a carcinogen.
My father smoked heavily all his life and died
at 61 while smoking a cigarette and driving a
car. My mother never smoked and died in her
40's from cancer.
• There are a million carcinogens floating around
and no one is greater than another. Tobacco,
however has a dreadful effect on the cardio
vascular system constricts the tubes. I was
sharing a cab with a friend from the upper west
side to the Village. She was sort of a co host at
the party and she had been running around
with a carpet slipper on and chain smoking.
I asked her why the slipper? "I've got an
infected toe that will not heal". "Did your
doctor tell you to stop smoking?" "He told me
to cut down." "Did he mention 'Berger's
disease. "I suggest you ask him about it because
the way you are going, you will end up in a
basket."
Why was I so cruel? Because my cousin lost
both his legs and eventuall died of cardio
vascular complications. A month later my
friend called me for alerting her. She said she
threw he cigs away and her big toe, shorter a
bit, but fully healed.
Bret Cahill
> From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
> By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> Monitor
>
> In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
JohnM
Do these denialists deserve our precious time debunking their
nonsense? This one thinks GHGs retain planetary heat by virtue of
their specific heat capacity, indicating he/she has no clue about the
science involved.
What is also apparent, even when you correct their ridiculouous
notions they continue to repeat them 'ad nauseum'. Better to simply
ignore such rants completely.
JohnM
> On Jan 1, 10:53 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> > James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
> > By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> > Monitor
>
> > In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> > authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> > Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> > say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
> > human-induced climate change.
>
> The goal of the "extensive public relations campaign" of us skeptics
> is to expose AGW as a fraud which itself is the result of an
> "extensive public relations campaign" that conceals the truth about
> the lack of scientific support of AGW.
>
> One extensive public relations campaign vs. another. Why would you
> expect anything different?
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-wa...
<snip>
> > The authors equate the tactics in this "coverup" to those employed by
> > tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
>
> Back atcha.
Are you implying there is no health issue involved in tobacco use?
> > Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
> > campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
>
> Who cares.
Everybody who lost a loved one to a smoking related illness cares,
that's who.
<snip>
Michael Gordge
> The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
Oh looook its a conspiracy denier nutter.
MG
I M @ good guy
No, GHGs radiate heat according to temperature
and bandwidth, absorbing heat from the N2 and O2,
it is the N2 and O2 where all the retained heat resides,
and the radiation is to space.
Your time is precious? Are you getting paid
to perpetuate a myth?
>What is also apparent, even when you correct their ridiculouous
>notions they continue to repeat them 'ad nauseum'. Better to simply
>ignore such rants completely.
Different people have different opinions
about a vague science, in fact, I just looked at
a temperature record and the same months
had a variation up or down of 9 degrees F
over two or three years.
The published annual global average
is just plain horse manure passed off as
science, the biggest waste of money in
the history of the world.
Bret Cahill
>
> Oh looook its a conspiracy denier nutter.
Just admit it. You just put in a new ac unit.
Bret Cahill
Claudius Denk
> On Jan 1, 11:49 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 10:53 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> > > James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
> > > By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> > > Monitor
>
> > > In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> > > authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> > > Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> > > say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
> > > human-induced climate change.
>
> > The goal of the "extensive public relations campaign" of us skeptics
> > is to expose AGW as a fraud which itself is the result of an
> > "extensive public relations campaign" that conceals the truth about
> > the lack of scientific support of AGW.
>
> > One extensive public relations campaign vs. another. Why would you
> > expect anything different?
>
> >http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-wa...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The authors equate the tactics in this "coverup" to those employed by
> > > tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
>
> > Back atcha.
>
> Are you implying there is no health issue involved in tobacco use?
No. I'm implying that the tactics of AGW propagandists are the same
as those of tobacco companies.
> > > Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
> > > campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
>
> > Who cares.
>
> Everybody who lost a loved one to a smoking related illness cares,
> that's who.
So you are going to use their grief as a propaganda tool to extract
more tax money from their pockets? Is there anything you wouldn't say
or do to maintain this fraud?
mrbawana2u
> On Jan 1, 11:49 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 10:53 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> > > James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
> > > By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> > > Monitor
>
> > > In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> > > authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> > > Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> > > say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
> > > human-induced climate change.
>
> > The goal of the "extensive public relations campaign" of us skeptics
> > is to expose AGW as a fraud which itself is the result of an
> > "extensive public relations campaign" that conceals the truth about
> > the lack of scientific support of AGW.
>
> > One extensive public relations campaign vs. another. Why would you
> > expect anything different?
>
> >http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-wa...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The authors equate the tactics in this "coverup" to those employed by
> > > tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
>
> > Back atcha.
>
> Are you implying there is no health issue involved in tobacco use?
There's no health issue involved in the agw hoax.
> > > Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
> > > campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
>
> > Who cares.
>
> Everybody who lost a loved one to a smoking related illness cares,
> that's who.
"smoking related illness" another hoax.
erschro...@gmail.com
Like "earth going around the sun" -- do you feel like you're going
round and round? No, so it's obviously a hoax. Bunch socialists came
up with the idea, and where's their original data? Heck, Al Gore
probably believes the earth goes around the sun, so it's gotta be
wrong!
mrbawana2u
Only if you run your life on 'feelings', tturd packer, like most left-
turd-retards.
I don't, ass packer.
> Bunch socialists came
> up with the idea,
Prove it, you insipid left-turd.
> and where's their original data?
You tell me, retard.
You're the one that does "science by making shit up".
> Heck, Al Gore
> probably believes the earth goes around the sun, so it's gotta be
> wrong!
Your god, alpha turd, is a fool, ass packer.
I would rather possibly die a slow death because of climate change
than to assuredly die quickly because of left-turd tyranny.
ZNUYBV
gordo
Al Gore is only the messenger along with the worlds universities.Mao
with the cultural revolution tried to get rid of all the academics in
China.It did not work and it won't work here.
Sy Cobal-Imin
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
One would suspect that the interesting challenge in all
this is to augment the utility of livestock to humanity.
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:02:45 -0800 (PST), obvious idiot crusader mrbawana2u
<mrbaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>.. tturd packer, like ...
You like taking a dump on your keyboard.
That's preventing you from having a look at reality.
Things are heating up, even in winter. The warmth
is going to cause agricultural effects with repercussions
for every human being on the planet throughout the
future, and planning ahead for some things makes a
lot of sense, if you ever stop to think about it. Will
you ever stop to think about it?
How do you want to be seen if the people of future
generations could look back at you, and wonder why
you remained reactive and filled with hatred for them
rather than support improvements to their world?
>turd-retards.
>I ... ass packer.
Rather than attempting to wrap your anal sphincter
around your public presence, would it be too much
to ask of you to stop going on about yourself and
your glaring deficiencies, and notice the subject?
>Prove it
Prove the global climate has cooled. Get your data
and process it within the realm of logic and show it
to the world.
[This Space Reserved for the Sounds of Crickets.]
Prove the warming would somehow benefit humans
with a more reliably ample water and food supply.
[This Space Reserved for the Sounds of Crickets.]
Prove that you have some love for future generations
if not for yourself, and consider your legacy to them.
[This Space Reserved for the Sounds of Crickets.]
Until you provide proof on which to base your claims,
how would you imagine others would consider you?
>... insipid ...-turd.
>...retard.
>...making shit up...
Don't be so harsh on yourself: you are probably a victim
of malnourishment and environmental toxins.
>... god, alpha turd, ...a fool, ass packer.
>I ...-turd...
Yet enough about you. It's not tyrannical that you be
expected not to defecate on future humans.
Meanwhile:
<erschro...@gmail.com> had cattily written:
>Like "earth going around the sun" -- do you feel like you're going
>round and round? No, so it's obviously a hoax. Bunch socialists came
>up with the idea, and where's their original data? Heck, Al Gore
>probably believes the earth goes around the sun, so it's gotta be
>wrong!
That's superb, in case no one else had mentioned it, yet.
mrbawana2u
> [scuttle nutts' mental illness flushed]
*us*
>Corporations ARE people...
"Does this flaky procedure mean all later cases relying on Santa Clara are null and void?
Nope--in the world of the law, a precedent is a precedent, even if it's a stupid one.
However, Hartmann's book has caused a stir in legal circles, and some hope the Supreme
Court will take another look at corporate personhood. A few naifs think a reversal will
spell the end of global corporate tyranny. Ain't gonna happen--fact is, the courts have
been chipping away at corporate personhood for years, and you don't exactly see our
capitalist overlords suffering from it. But it'd be nice to have a clear-cut ruling, say,
that limiting campaign contributions by big businesses doesn't mean you're restricting
their First Amendment rights.
� Cecil Adams"
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person
>When corporations suffer, people suffer.
When people suffer, some corporations make money on it.
*us*
>On Jan 8, 3:28 am, * US * wrote:
>Do these denialists deserve our precious time debunking their
>nonsense? This one thinks GHGs retain planetary heat by virtue of
>their specific heat capacity, indicating he/she has no clue about the
>science involved.
>
>What is also apparent, even when you correct their ridiculouous
>notions they continue to repeat them 'ad nauseum'. Better to simply
>ignore such rants completely.
You make a good point, of course.
The denialist isn't educable, too, often, but he
remains identifiable, to at least some purpose.
On occasion, one hopes that should posterity be
considering the actions of our time, they just might
be able to see that some were working to defend
their interests, in advance.
*us*
>... so upset ...pathetic
You're that, ad nauseam.
Where is your evidence that the global climate is cooling?
Where is your evidence that melting off the remaining
glaciers would be beneficial for human water supplies?
Where is your evidence of any kind?
Michael Price
Just admit it, you don't have a case. The AGW crowd got caught
lying and destroying the peer review process so now nobody has to
believe a word they say. As for a "crusade" to deny global warming,
with the funds going WAY more than 90% to those that support it
it's more like the peasant's crusade, no funding and nobody cares.
The thing is that lying about what your opponents said (e.g. claiming
they're horrible people for saying hurricanes haven't gotten worse
when
they haven't) gets remembered.
I M @ good guy
Are you tongue-tied, just what are you trying
to say, that government should own everything, or
just any operation too big for an individual?
I M @ good guy
Your posterior.
All skeptics do is question, if a "scientist" can't
take the heat.............
But the premise of AGW, not GW, is flawed in
several ways. If AGW existed to the extent claimed,
it would be warmer than 1998, or at least a couple of
years since 1998 would have been warmer, the very
existence of a plateau is a condemnation of either
the AGW premise, or it is a strong indication that
the method or something in constructing the data
is wrong.
The AGW nutcases whining here are not even
able to understand that nothing, NOTHING, but
GreenHouses - COOL - the atmosphere, instead
of "trapping" heat.
There would be a lapse rate even without GHGs,
the N2 and O2 atmosphere would be warmer at
sunrise than it is now, because it could not cool.
Does AGW mean "stupid"?
Shrikeback
Argument by analogy. Typical greenola ill-logic.
> > Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
> > Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
> > health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
> > doctor.
>
> > Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
> > afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
>
> > That drives the point home in a very real way.
>
> > But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
> > the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
> > issue of human-induced climate change.
>
> > One poll conducted in October by the Pew Research Center found that
> > the percentage of Americans who believe that there's evidence global
> > warming is happening shrank from 71 percent in 2008 to 57 percent this
> > year.
>
> > A more recent ABC-Washington Post poll found a slightly smaller, but
> > nonetheless significant drop — from 80 to 72 percent.
>
> > One of the more notable aspects is how the belief in human-induced
> > climate change has become a partisan issue.
>
> > The drop among Republicans and independents is more precipitous than
> > among Democrats.
>
> > The Pew poll found that 75 percent of Democrats believe in global
> > warming, compared to 83 percent last year.
Other polls have put it at 50% among the general population.
> > But only 53 percent of independents believe, compared to 75 percent
> > perviously.
>
> > And just 35 percent of Republicans believe, as opposed to 49 percent
> > last year.
>
> > Hoggan argues that these numbers represent a PR coup, a campaign that
> > he says has succeeded in politicizing science.
>
> > Previous issues, such as worries over ozone depletion from CFCs in the
> > 1980s and '90s, never became partisan.
And yet, the ozone hole was never really a threat. It was confined
to the Antarctic during the nighttime and resulted in no increase
in UV radiation at the Earth's surface, since it was replinished at
the Antarctic daybreak. Still, at least there was a solution to that
one: replace CFCs with something else. Simple, painless. There
is no solution to CO2 production besides impoverishment. Good
luck selling that one, even with a whole lotta marketing acumen.
> > The world addressed the problem in a relatively expedient fashion.
>
> > Not so with the rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
>
> > We asked Hoggan why he thought public opinion on climate-related
> > issues has been so easy to manipulate, especially during a period when
> > scientists have become ever more certain that human activity is
> > changing Earth's climate.
>
> > Here are his responses, somewhat edited, to this and other questions:
>
> > A:
>
> > We are too easy to manipulate.
Agreed. You are.
> > There are a number of reasons for that.
>
> > Two of the most important reasons are:
>
> > the media are quite easy to manipulate; and we also don't take the
> > time to understand many of the issues of the day.
>
> > People are busy.
>
> > And people have a lot of problems that they're facing.
>
> > So I think there's a limited capacity to be worried about issues.
On the other hand, there are those who make their living
promoting hysteria, gettin' out their megaphones and warning
that the end is nigh, repent of your consumptions for Gaia's
second coming is at hand.
> > I also think that people are kind of worn out by public relations
> > spin.
>
> > They have become very cynical and mistrustful.
>
> > There are many people who just see science as another point of view.
>
> > They don't see it as removed from belief and faith as people more
> > familiar with science would see it.
The problem is that greenolas have been trying to inject
faith into science for a long time.
> > That's a scientific literacy issue.
Well, yeah. Greenolas don't even know what chaos is.
F'r instance, we have this old fart posting around here
about how the Antarctic is going to melt and that's going
to cause the Yellowstone caldera to blow its top and
we have another one who thinks all non-linear systems
are created equal. A = B = C =.... It's a kind of inverted
Randianism, I guess.
> > And once you politicize science to the point that it's partisan, then
> > the meaning of what you're talking about, in this case the science of
> > heat-trapping gases leading to changes in Earth's climate, takes on a
> > complex worldview and emotional commitment that far exceeds just the
> > science.
>
> > The science turns into a threat to a world view, or to democracy and
> > what the US should stand for.
>
> > Then it becomes a highly emotionally-charged issue that has nothing to
> > do with science.
Amen to that. How about we tell all the whackjob greenolas
to shut up about this until 2100, so the science can just be
science, rather than a football for greenolas?
> > Is there an asymmetry between the two camps — scientists trying to
> > inform policymakers and the public about humanity's impact on climate
> > on one side, and the PR campaign you describe arguing that humanity's
> > impact on climate is minimal or nonexistent, and that doing anything
> > to curb fossil fuel is impractical and will destroy the economy on the
> > other?
>
> > A:
>
> > I think the advantage here is in the skeptics' court on a number of
> > fronts.
>
> > One reason is the enormous amount of money that has gone into doing
> > basic research on framing the issue and messaging.
>
> > That information gets passed around and amplified.
Actually, this applies just as much to the enviral hysterical
jihad.
> > You have a network to create an echo chamber, and you can do it over a
> > couple of decades — especially when you're only trying to sell doubt.
>
> > You're not trying to get people to change their way of life, or learn
> > more, like environmentalists, who need to think about this issue, and
> > think about options.
>
> > I'm inclined as an average person to not have any more to worry about.
> > If there's an easy answer when there's a big problem — in this case,
> > that the science is full of doubt so action isn't warranted — and I've
> > already got a lot on my plate, then I'm inclined to accept the
> > skeptics' message.
The science is full of doubt, because that's what science
is about. It's the religious environmentalists who are full
of faith.
*us*
>... just what are you trying
>to say ...
Try learning how to read.
Hitler and Mussolini put corporations before real people, too.
*us*
>... posterior.
That's not what you should use to try to type.
>... nutcases whining here...
You do that because you have no data.
Where is your evidence that the global climate is cooling?
Where is your evidence that melting off the remaining
glaciers would be beneficial for human water supplies?
Where is your evidence of any kind?
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:14:48 -0800 (PST), JohnM <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
I M @ good guy
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:48:18 -0500, "I M @ illiterate guy" <I...@illiterate.guy> wrote:
>
>>... just what are you trying
>>to say ...
>
>Try learning how to read.
>
>Hitler and Mussolini put corporations before real people, too.
Just what are you trying to say, that you are
another socialist pushing a take-over control agenda?
Take it to the appropriate newsgroup.
I M @ good guy
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:59:44 -0500, "I M @ goof guy" <I...@goof.guy> wrote:
>
>>... posterior.
>
>That's not what you should use to try to type.
>
>>... nutcases whining here...
>
>You do that because you have no data.
>
>Where is your evidence that the global climate is cooling?
I said it isn't warming, if that sinks your boat,
too bad.
Not a single AGW nutcase has stated that it
is obvious to them that GreenHouse Gases _ARE_
what cool the atmosphere, that shows how overly
fixated they are on the Global Warming garbage.
What will all of you kooks do if an investigation
shows it never really warmed much at all, that nature
and the improper management of constructing the
data set just made it appear to have warmed?
*us*
> Just what are you trying to say ...
As before, it is suggested that you learn how to read
for comprehension.
"The goal of this PR campaign: to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use,
a major contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases, and to allow oil and coal
companies to continue reaping record profits."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1228/James-Hoggan-talks-about-global-warming
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:48:18 -0500, "I M @ illiterate guy" <I...@illiterate.guy> wrote:
>... just what are you trying
>to say ...
Try learning how to read.
Hitler and Mussolini put corporations before real people, too.
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:25:01 -0600, "S. Caro" <sc...@mux-net-88.com> wrote:
*us*
global warming. It is now "unequivocal," they concluded, that the planet is heating up.
Humans are directly responsible for the planetary heat wave, and only by taking immediate
action can the world avert a climate catastrophe. Megadroughts, raging wildfires,
decimated forests, dengue fever, legions of Katrinas - unless humans act now to curb our
climate-warming pollution, warned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "we are
in deep trouble.""
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 21:03:03 -0500, "I M @ goof guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>... I said it isn't warming ...
Where is your data?
Why do you make claims without any data?
>... nutcase ... garbage.
>... kooks ...
Perhaps you can't learn about science because
you're malnourished and suffering from the
exposure to environmental toxins.
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:59:44 -0500, "I M @ goof guy" <I...@goof.guy> wrote:
>... posterior.
That's not what you should use to try to type.
>... nutcases whining here...
You do that because you have no data.
Where is your evidence that the global climate is cooling?
Where is your evidence that melting off the remaining
I M @ good guy
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:57:10 -0500, "I M @ idiot guy" <I...@idiot.guy> wrote:
>
>> Just what are you trying to say ...
>
>As before, it is suggested that you learn how to read
>for comprehension.
I don't bother to try to read minds or make
up for deficiencies in posting by others.
>"The goal of this PR campaign: to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use,
>a major contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases, and to allow oil and coal
>companies to continue reaping record profits."
>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1228/James-Hoggan-talks-about-global-warming
Propaganda, pure BS. Posting a fake sub-title
in quotes is about as low and slimey as an earthworm
or a slug.
>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:48:18 -0500, "I M @ illiterate guy" <I...@illiterate.guy> wrote:
>
>>... just what are you trying
>>to say ...
>
>Try learning how to read.
>
>Hitler and Mussolini put corporations before real people, too.
>
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:25:01 -0600, "S. Caro" <sc...@mux-net-88.com> wrote:
>
>>Corporations ARE people...
>
>"Does this flaky procedure mean all later cases relying on Santa Clara are null and void?
>Nope--in the world of the law, a precedent is a precedent, even if it's a stupid one.
>However, Hartmann's book has caused a stir in legal circles, and some hope the Supreme
>Court will take another look at corporate personhood. A few naifs think a reversal will
>spell the end of global corporate tyranny. Ain't gonna happen--fact is, the courts have
>been chipping away at corporate personhood for years, and you don't exactly see our
>capitalist overlords suffering from it. But it'd be nice to have a clear-cut ruling, say,
>that limiting campaign contributions by big businesses doesn't mean you're restricting
>their First Amendment rights.
>
>— Cecil Adams"
>
>http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person
>
>>When corporations suffer, people suffer.
>
>When people suffer, some corporations make money on it.
>
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:20:51 -0800 (PST), Last Post <last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
>>...fascist bullshit...
>
>Why do you want people to suffer for corporations?
Socialist talking points score zero.
JohnM
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:14:00 -0800 (PST), JohnM
<snip>
> >> >> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> >> >> It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> >> >> of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> >> >> and thats why there is so much of it about.
>
> >> >Junk science - you don't even have grip on the facts.
>
> >> >> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
> >> >> DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
> >> >> become a major factor to global warming.
> >> >> They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
> >> >> to carry heat around the globe.
>
> >Do these denialists deserve our precious time debunking their
> >nonsense? This one thinks GHGs retain planetary heat by virtue of
> >their specific heat capacity, indicating he/she has no clue about the
> >science involved.
>
> No, GHGs radiate heat according to temperature
> and bandwidth, absorbing heat from the N2 and O2,
> it is the N2 and O2 where all the retained heat resides,
> and the radiation is to space.
See what I mean? This is gobbledegook, like the name of the poster
himself, yet we're still posting replies trying to explain the science
to these ignoramuses.They remind me of those nutters who post "proofs"
of how to trisect an angle or square the circle on the Euclidean
plane, using just a ruler and compasses.
Fortunately the scientific establishment doesn't have to listen to
them rant as they are at least smart enough not to try to publish
anything.
<snip>
*us*
You could start with "Basic" and "Global Warming FAQ".
Do let us know when the going gets too difficult for you,
so that we can offer you even more help with it.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:20:22 -0500, "I M @ idiot guy" <I...@idiot.guy> wrote:
> I don't bother to try to read ...
That was already obvious about you.
It results in specific problems for you.
>...deficiencies in posting ...
You seem to post mostly about your inability
to read for comprehension, but you also
post nonsense and fallacy.
> Propaganda, pure BS...
You've swallowed quite a lot of that, haven't you.
>... about as low and slimey as an earthworm
>or a slug.
Yet it's not about you. It's about science, with data.
Ever heard of that?
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:57:10 -0500, "I M @ idiot guy" <I...@idiot.guy> wrote:
> Just what are you trying to say ...
As before, it is suggested that you learn how to read
for comprehension.
"The goal of this PR campaign: to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use,
a major contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases, and to allow oil and coal
companies to continue reaping record profits."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1228/James-Hoggan-talks-about-global-warming
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:48:18 -0500, "I M @ illiterate guy" <I...@illiterate.guy> wrote:
mrbawana2u
mrbawana2u
mrbawana2u
Marvin the Martian
>>From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:
>>http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>>
>>James Hoggan talks about global warming
>>
>>By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
>>
>>
>>In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
>>authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
>>Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they say,
>>aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of human-induced
>>climate change.
>>http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-
warming-skepticism-is-fueled-by-public-relations-author-says
>>
>>The goal of this PR campaign:
>>
>>to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
>>contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases, and to allow oil and
>>coal companies to continue reaping record profits.
The lies here are: 1) CO2 is a major heat trapping gas.
2) Profits made by giving people what they want are bad.
The first lie is just bullshit. The second lie is communist bullshit,
straight out of the communist manifesto. Only American hating traitors
who should be put up against the wall and shot utter it. ;-)
This whole idiot article is one big argumentum ad hominem fallacy. A few
bad analogies are thrown in: Smoking is bad, And tobacco companies tried
to cover it up. Ergo, CO2 is bad, and fuel companies are trying to cover
it up. No, that's a bad analogy. One being true doesn't make the premise
of the second true.
The article is moronic gibberish, written by a gibbering ape, and will
delight only shit throwing ape pre-humans.
>
> Thanks for posting that.
>
> Even the most desperate denialist can't dispute it.
Somehow, I knew that pile of horse shit thinking would delight you.
Jerry Okamura
"* US *" wrote in message news:oe1ik5pc3e91rilrs...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:48:18 -0500, "I M @ illiterate guy"
> <I...@illiterate.guy> wrote:
>
>>... just what are you trying
>>to say ...
>
> Try learning how to read.
>
> Hitler and Mussolini put corporations before real people, too.
>
I M @ good guy
>http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/
>
>You could start with "Basic" and "Global Warming FAQ".
>
>Do let us know when the going gets too difficult for you,
>so that we can offer you even more help with it.
Why don't you learn to respond below the relevant
text if you are such an expert, top posting is for green
newbies who don't know better.
The Basic premise of Greenhouse Gases is wrong,
it does not treat the concentration of water vapor as
a variable and places way too much emphasis on CO2.
If you need to read the FAQ, apparently you are
not much more literate than Joe the plumber.
[the newbie "US" top posted, so no new text below]
Bill Ward
> On Jan 8, 3:26 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:14:00 -0800 (PST), JohnM
>> <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> >> >> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20. It is the
>> >> >> billions of liters of water in the form of clouds in the sky. Two
>> >> >> thirds of the planet is water and thats why there is so much of
>> >> >> it about.
>>
>> >> >Junk science - you don't even have grip on the facts.
>>
>> >> >> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases DO NOT contribute to
>> >> >> global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER become a major factor to global
>> >> >> warming. They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas to
>> >> >> carry heat around the globe.
>>
>> >Do these denialists deserve our precious time debunking their
>> >nonsense? This one thinks GHGs retain planetary heat by virtue of
>> >their specific heat capacity, indicating he/she has no clue about the
>> >science involved.
>>
>> No, GHGs radiate heat according to temperature
>> and bandwidth, absorbing heat from the N2 and O2, it is the N2 and O2
>> where all the retained heat resides, and the radiation is to space.
>
> See what I mean? This is gobbledegook,
No, it's not "gobbledegook", it's just that Morgan doesn't have enough
background in basic physics to understand what it means. Every word is
true as written, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The amount of
power radiated depends on the temperature/altitude of emission, which
varies with surface temperature, convection, and other parameters.
> like the name of the poster
> himself, yet we're still posting replies trying to explain the science
> to these ignoramuses.They remind me of those nutters who post "proofs"
> of how to trisect an angle or square the circle on the Euclidean plane,
> using just a ruler and compasses.
But Morgan still isn't able to refute a single word of the statement.
Why do you suppose that is?
*us*
>The lies here
Do you claim that the globe is cooling?
Why?
Where is your data?
>... Profits made by giving people what they want ...
You've misspelled "cashing in on destroying lives".
>... American hating traitors ...
You won't mind if the entire southwest becomes a dust bowl.
>... moronic gibberish, written by a gibbering ape, and will
>delight only shit throwing ape pre-humans.
You post like that to serve as a pawn for those who despise you.
>...horse shit ...
Where's your data?
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:53:15 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:
>>http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>>
>>James Hoggan talks about global warming
>>
>>By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
>>Monitor
>>
>>
>>In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
>>authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
>>Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
>>say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
>>human-induced climate change.
>>http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-warming-skepticism-is-fueled-by-public-relations-author-says
>>
>>The goal of this PR campaign:
>>
>>to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
>>contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases, and to allow oil
>>and coal companies to continue reaping record profits.
>>
>>The authors equate the tactics in this "coverup" to those employed by
>>tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
>>
>>Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
>>campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
>>
>>For instance, one major climate skeptic organization, the Heartland
>>Institute, hosts a "smoker's lounge," billed as "the place to go for
>>sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues."
>>
>>The message:
>>
>>smoking is not as bad for you as you've been led to believe.
>>
>>It's been unfairly and unduly demonized by "left-liberal" interests
>>bent on quashing the true libertarian spirit of the nation.
>>
>>By now, not many Americans buy this argument, even those who smoke.
>>
>>Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
>>Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
>>health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
>>doctor.
>>
>>Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
>>afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
>>
>>That drives the point home in a very real way.
>>
>>But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
>>the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
>>issue of human-induced climate change.
>>
>>One poll conducted in October by the Pew Research Center found that
>>the percentage of Americans who believe that there's evidence global
>>warming is happening shrank from 71 percent in 2008 to 57 percent this
>>year.
>>
>>A more recent ABC-Washington Post poll found a slightly smaller, but
>>nonetheless significant drop � from 80 to 72 percent.
>>
>>One of the more notable aspects is how the belief in human-induced
>>climate change has become a partisan issue.
>>
>>The drop among Republicans and independents is more precipitous than
>>among Democrats.
>>
>>The Pew poll found that 75 percent of Democrats believe in global
>>warming, compared to 83 percent last year.
>>
>>But only 53 percent of independents believe, compared to 75 percent
>>perviously.
>>
>>And just 35 percent of Republicans believe, as opposed to 49 percent
>>last year.
>>
>>Hoggan argues that these numbers represent a PR coup, a campaign that
>>he says has succeeded in politicizing science.
>>
>>Previous issues, such as worries over ozone depletion from CFCs in the
>>1980s and '90s, never became partisan.
>>
>>The world addressed the problem in a relatively expedient fashion.
>>
>>Not so with the rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
>>
>>We asked Hoggan why he thought public opinion on climate-related
>>issues has been so easy to manipulate, especially during a period when
>>scientists have become ever more certain that human activity is
>>changing Earth's climate.
>>
>>Here are his responses, somewhat edited, to this and other questions:
>>
>>
>>A:
>>
>>We are too easy to manipulate.
>>
>>There are a number of reasons for that.
>>
>>Two of the most important reasons are:
>>
>>the media are quite easy to manipulate; and we also don't take the
>>time to understand many of the issues of the day.
>>
>>People are busy.
>>
>>And people have a lot of problems that they're facing.
>>
>>So I think there's a limited capacity to be worried about issues.
>>
>>I also think that people are kind of worn out by public relations
>>spin.
>>
>>They have become very cynical and mistrustful.
>>
>>There are many people who just see science as another point of view.
>>
>>They don't see it as removed from belief and faith as people more
>>familiar with science would see it.
>>
>>That's a scientific literacy issue.
>>
>>And once you politicize science to the point that it's partisan, then
>>the meaning of what you're talking about, in this case the science of
>>heat-trapping gases leading to changes in Earth's climate, takes on a
>>complex worldview and emotional commitment that far exceeds just the
>>science.
>>
>>The science turns into a threat to a world view, or to democracy and
>>what the US should stand for.
>>
>>Then it becomes a highly emotionally-charged issue that has nothing to
>>do with science.
>>
>>
>>Q:
>>
>>Is there an asymmetry between the two camps � scientists trying to
>>inform policymakers and the public about humanity's impact on climate
>>on one side, and the PR campaign you describe arguing that humanity's
>>impact on climate is minimal or nonexistent, and that doing anything
>>to curb fossil fuel is impractical and will destroy the economy on the
>>other?
>>
>>
>>A:
>>
>>I think the advantage here is in the skeptics' court on a number of
>>fronts.
>>
>>One reason is the enormous amount of money that has gone into doing
>>basic research on framing the issue and messaging.
>>
>>That information gets passed around and amplified.
>>
>>You have a network to create an echo chamber, and you can do it over a
>>couple of decades � especially when you're only trying to sell doubt.
>>
>>You're not trying to get people to change their way of life, or learn
>>more, like environmentalists, who need to think about this issue, and
>>think about options.
>>
>>I'm inclined as an average person to not have any more to worry about.
>>If there's an easy answer when there's a big problem � in this case,
>>that the science is full of doubt so action isn't warranted � and I've
>>already got a lot on my plate, then I'm inclined to accept the
>>skeptics' message.
>>
>>The situation is suited to people who are up to mischief.
>>
>>
>>Q:
>>
>>What can people do?
>>
>>
>>A:
>>
>>The reason we wrote this book is that we feel we understand the public
>>relations behind the campaign and the public's growing confusion on
>>the issue.
>>
>>One of the things that solves the problem of being manipulated is
>>awareness.
>>
>>Deceit loses its power when people become aware of it.
>>
>>So we, as citizens, need to demand more of ourselves, of the media we
>>read, and we need to stop either manipulating public opinion, or being
>>manipulated by it.
>>
>>Creating awareness is the first step.
>>
>>____________________________________________________
>>
>>Harry
Thanks for posting that.
*us*
>...scuttle nutts' mental illness...
You believe because you're not capable of knowing.
You have no evidence.
*us*
>...scuttle nutts' mental illness ...
Your personal issues aren't the subject here, though
they do explain your unenviable "denier" condition.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/
You could start with "Basic" and "Global Warming FAQ".
Do let us know when the going gets too difficult for you,
so that we can offer you even more help with it.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:20:22 -0500, "I M @ idiot guy" <I...@idiot.guy> wrote:
> I don't bother to try to read ...
That was already obvious about you.
It results in specific problems for you.
>...deficiencies in posting ...
You seem to post mostly about your inability
to read for comprehension, but you also
post nonsense and fallacy.
> Propaganda, pure BS...
You've swallowed quite a lot of that, haven't you.
>... about as low and slimey as an earthworm
>or a slug.
Yet it's not about you. It's about science, with data.
Ever heard of that?
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:57:10 -0500, "I M @ idiot guy" <I...@idiot.guy> wrote:
> Just what are you trying to say ...
As before, it is suggested that you learn how to read
for comprehension.
"The goal of this PR campaign: to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use,
a major contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases, and to allow oil and coal
companies to continue reaping record profits."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1228/James-Hoggan-talks-about-global-warming
*us*
>...scuttle nutts' mental illness ...
You seem to be reduced to jibbering the same
nonsense repeatedly. You must be quite weak.
You have no evidence.
"Earlier this year, the world's top climate scientists released a definitive report on
global warming. It is now "unequivocal," they concluded, that the planet is heating up.
Humans are directly responsible for the planetary heat wave, and only by taking immediate
action can the world avert a climate catastrophe. Megadroughts, raging wildfires,
decimated forests, dengue fever, legions of Katrinas - unless humans act now to curb our
climate-warming pollution, warned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "we are
in deep trouble.""
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 21:03:03 -0500, "I M @ goof guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>... I said it isn't warming ...
Where is your data?
Why do you make claims without any data?
>... nutcase ... garbage.
>... kooks ...
Perhaps you can't learn about science because
you're malnourished and suffering from the
exposure to environmental toxins.
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:59:44 -0500, "I M @ goof guy" <I...@goof.guy> wrote:
>... posterior.
That's not what you should use to try to type.
>... nutcases whining here...
You do that because you have no data.
Where is your evidence that the global climate is cooling?
Where is your evidence that melting off the remaining
glaciers would be beneficial for human water supplies?
Where is your evidence of any kind?
John M.
So all the planetary heat is in O2 and N2 is it? You're as big an
idiot as he is.
but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Exactly. In fact it doesn't even tell the beginning, middle or end of
the story. Therefore it is gobbledegook.
The amount of
> power radiated depends on the temperature/altitude of emission, which
> varies with surface temperature, convection, and other parameters.
Now explain to him the bit you just sneaked in about surface
temperature. Or perhaps you'd rather not do that, as it contradicts
your own gobbledegook that you have long promulgated on this NG.
> > like the name of the poster
> > himself, yet we're still posting replies trying to explain the science
> > to these ignoramuses.They remind me of those nutters who post "proofs"
> > of how to trisect an angle or square the circle on the Euclidean plane,
> > using just a ruler and compasses.
>
> But Morgan still isn't able to refute a single word of the statement.
> Why do you suppose that is?
Why bother. I'll just refer you to the archives of the NG where
denialist nonsense has been debunked over and over and over and...
Bill Ward
Morgan apparently believes the GHGs can somehow store heat without
transferring it to the O2 and N2. Of course not all the atmospheric
sensible heat is contained in O2 and N2 - only about 99.9% of it is.
Most of the _planetary_ surface heat is in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
There's also quite a bit of latent heat of water in play, but let's not
get Morgan any more confused than he already is.
>> but it doesn't tell the whole story.
>
> Exactly. In fact it doesn't even tell the beginning, middle or end of
> the story. Therefore it is gobbledegook.
Only to the sufficiently ignorant.
>> The amount of
>> power radiated depends on the temperature/altitude of emission, which
>> varies with surface temperature, convection, and other parameters.
>
> Now explain to him the bit you just sneaked in about surface
> temperature. Or perhaps you'd rather not do that, as it contradicts your
> own gobbledegook that you have long promulgated on this NG.
It's just the negative feedback mechanism that stabilizes the surface
temperature. If Morgan had paid attention, he'd know that, if he had
sufficient physics background to understand it.
>> > like the name of the poster
>> > himself, yet we're still posting replies trying to explain the
>> > science to these ignoramuses.They remind me of those nutters who post
>> > "proofs" of how to trisect an angle or square the circle on the
>> > Euclidean plane, using just a ruler and compasses.
>>
>> But Morgan still isn't able to refute a single word of the statement.
>> Why do you suppose that is?
>
> Why bother. I'll just refer you to the archives of the NG where
> denialist nonsense has been debunked over and over and over and...
Translation: Morgan has no idea what's going on. He's trying to cheer
for his side in a game in which he doesn't even know the rules.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Jan 1, 10:53 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> > James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
> > By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> > Monitor
>
> > In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> > authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> > Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> > say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
> > human-induced climate change.
>
> is to expose AGW as a fraud which itself is the result of an
> "extensive public relations campaign" that conceals the truth about
> the lack of scientific support of AGW.
>
> One extensive public relations campaign vs. another. Why would you
> expect anything different?
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-wa...
>
>
>
> > The goal of this PR campaign:
>
> > to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
> > contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,
>
>
> > and to allow oil
> > and coal companies to continue reaping record profits.
>
> ]
Because fossils fuels are the source of most man-made CO2 emissions,
and any meaningful reform will cut into your profits.
>
>
> > The authors equate the tactics in this "coverup" to those employed by
> > tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
>
> Back atcha.
>
I'm sorry, was this supposed to be clever?
>
>
> > Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
> > campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
>
> Who cares.
>
Anyone who cares about the truth.
>
>
> > For instance, one major climate skeptic organization, the Heartland
> > Institute, hosts a "smoker's lounge," billed as "the place to go for
> > sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues."
>
> Yeah, so?
>
So it proves these guys are in the business of disseminating bullshit.
>
>
> > The message:
>
> > smoking is not as bad for you as you've been led to believe.
>
> Wrong issue. If AGW stood on it's own merits you would have no need
> for this desperation tactic.
>
Someone who lies about one thing will probably lie about another.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's been unfairly and unduly demonized by "left-liberal" interests
> > bent on quashing the true libertarian spirit of the nation.
>
> > By now, not many Americans buy this argument, even those who smoke.
>
> > Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
> > Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
> > health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
> > doctor.
>
> > Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
> > afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
>
> > That drives the point home in a very real way.
>
> > But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
> > the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
> > issue of human-induced climate change.
>
> > One poll conducted in October by the Pew Research Center found that
> > the percentage of Americans who believe that there's evidence global
> > warming is happening shrank from 71 percent in 2008 to 57 percent this
> > year.
>
> It's going to continue to shrink. People see through the kind of
> whacko arguments you are presenting here.
>
Probably because Americans are continuing to get dumber.
>
>
> > A more recent ABC-Washington Post poll found a slightly smaller, but
> > nonetheless significant drop — from 80 to 72 percent.
>
> > One of the more notable aspects is how the belief in human-induced
> > climate change has become a partisan issue.
>
> Gee, do ya think.
>
And this is a good thing because....
>
>
> > The drop among Republicans and independents is more precipitous than
> > among Democrats.
>
> > The Pew poll found that 75 percent of Democrats believe in global
> > warming, compared to 83 percent last year.
>
> > But only 53 percent of independents believe, compared to 75 percent
> > perviously.
>
> > And just 35 percent of Republicans believe, as opposed to 49 percent
> > last year.
>
> > Hoggan argues that these numbers represent a PR coup, a campaign that
> > he says has succeeded in politicizing science.
>
> Yep. We got you whackos on the run.
>
A whacko is someone who ignores empirical evidence. History is full
of fools who ignored sound warnings and paid a heavy price for it.
>
>
> > Previous issues, such as worries over ozone depletion from CFCs in the
> > 1980s and '90s, never became partisan.
>
> > The world addressed the problem in a relatively expedient fashion.
>
> > Not so with the rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
>
> Yeah, I think you missed your window of opportunity about three or
> four years ago. You've been fighting an uphill battle ever since. It
> was apparent Copenhagen would be a bust even before climategate. The
> ozone hole (CFC) scam, with its relatively modest reach into the
> taxpayer's pockets, should have been the model you followed.
What, you're saying that NASA faked those pictures of the ozone hole?
>You got
> greedy. You blew it. Let that be a lesson to you envirofraudsters to
> cash in your chips while the getting is good
They didn't get greedy. You got stupid.
>
>
>
> > We asked Hoggan why he thought public opinion on climate-related
> > issues has been so easy to manipulate, especially during a period when
> > scientists have become ever more certain that human activity is
> > changing Earth's climate.
>
> > Here are his responses, somewhat edited, to this and other questions:
>
> > A:
>
> > We are too easy to manipulate.
>
> On this we agree.
>
>
> > There are a number of reasons for that.
>
> > Two of the most important reasons are:
>
> > the media are quite easy to manipulate; and we also don't take the
> > time to understand many of the issues of the day.
>
> Andy Revkin and his cohorts are perfect examples.
>
This guy missed "total lack of education'.
>
> > People are busy.
>
> > And people have a lot of problems that they're facing.
>
> > So I think there's a limited capacity to be worried about issues.
>
> > I also think that people are kind of worn out by public relations
> > spin.
>
> > They have become very cynical and mistrustful.
>
> > There are many people who just see science as another point of view.
>
> > They don't see it as removed from belief and faith as people more
> > familiar with science would see it.
>
> > That's a scientific literacy issue.
>
> > And once you politicize science to the point that it's partisan, then
> > the meaning of what you're talking about, in this case the science of
> > heat-trapping gases leading to changes in Earth's climate, takes on a
> > complex worldview and emotional commitment that far exceeds just the
> > science.
>
> The thing that defeated AGW more than anything else was conceptual
> clarity. AGW fraudsters failed to fully obscure the science. This
> gave skeptics a leg up in further expose the fraud.
Uh huh. Right. So what's causing the ocean levels to increase? The
glaciers to melt?
Idiots like you will probably still be denying it after they're
treading water in Central Park.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The science turns into a threat to a world view, or to democracy and
> > what the US should stand for.
>
> > Then it becomes a highly emotionally-charged issue that has nothing to
> > do with science.
>
> > Q:
>
> > Is there an asymmetry between the two camps — scientists trying to
> > inform policymakers and the public about humanity's impact on climate
> > on one side, and the PR campaign you describe arguing that humanity's
> > impact on climate is minimal or nonexistent, and that doing anything
> > to curb fossil fuel is impractical and will destroy the economy on the
> > other?
>
> > A:
>
> > I think the advantage here is in the skeptics' court on a number of
> > fronts.
>
> > One reason is the enormous amount of money that has gone into doing
> > basic research on framing the issue and messaging.
>
> Skeptic funding is a drop in the bucket compared to AGW funding. The
> AGW alarmist had/have their hands in the deepest pocket on this
> planet, the american government.
Ohhhhhh,riiiiigggghhhhttttt, yeah those climate scientists, live like
kings, going out to Antarctic sites in limos and taking salinity
readings from their private yachts.
Moron.
>
> Obama's Nobel prize should be shared by all the taxpayer. Afterall,
> we're the ones that paid for it.
>
>
Really? Then, by that logic, anyone who got a Nobel Prize should
share it with the taxpayers.
>
>
>
>
>
> > That information gets passed around and amplified.
>
> > You have a network to create an echo chamber, and you can do it over a
> > couple of decades — especially when you're only trying to sell doubt.
>
> > You're not trying to get people to change their way of life, or learn
> > more, like environmentalists, who need to think about this issue, and
> > think about options.
>
> > I'm inclined as an average person to not have any more to worry about.
> > If there's an easy answer when there's a big problem — in this case,
> > that the science is full of doubt so action isn't warranted — and I've
> > already got a lot on my plate, then I'm inclined to accept the
> > skeptics' message.
>
> > The situation is suited to people who are up to mischief.
>
> Kettle, pot, bang!
>
Moron, idiot, retard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Q:
>
> > What can people do?
>
> > A:
>
> > The reason we wrote this book is that we feel we understand the public
> > relations behind the campaign and the public's growing confusion on
> > the issue.
>
> > One of the things that solves the problem of being manipulated is
> > awareness.
>
> > Deceit loses its power when people become aware of it.
>
> > So we, as citizens, need to demand more of ourselves, of the media we
> > read, and we need to stop either manipulating public opinion, or being
> > manipulated by it.
>
> > Creating awareness is the first step.
>
> I think climategate was more awareness than you can handle. Are you
> sure you want more?
Climategate was a joke. Two out-of-context emails creating a tempest
in a teapot.
Meanwhile, practically every nation's main scientific body agrees that
global warming is real and man is causing it. (Including the National
Academy of Sciences and NASA), but these retards are yelling
"conspiracy". Fuck, if anyone could pull off a conspiracy that big,
they'd deserve to rule the world.
Siobhan Medeiros
> "Livestock a major threat to environment"
>
> http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
>
> One would suspect that the interesting challenge in all
> this is to augment the utility of livestock to humanity.
>
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:02:45 -0800 (PST), obvious idiot crusader mrbawana2u
>
> <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >.. tturd packer, like ...
>
> You like taking a dump on your keyboard.
>
> That's preventing you from having a look at reality.
>
> Things are heating up, even in winter. The warmth
> is going to cause agricultural effects with repercussions
> for every human being on the planet throughout the
> future, and planning ahead for some things makes a
> lot of sense, if you ever stop to think about it. Will
> you ever stop to think about it?
>
> How do you want to be seen if the people of future
> generations could look back at you, and wonder why
> you remained reactive and filled with hatred for them
> rather than support improvements to their world?
>
> >turd-retards.
> >I ... ass packer.
>
> Rather than attempting to wrap your anal sphincter
> around your public presence, would it be too much
> to ask of you to stop going on about yourself and
> your glaring deficiencies, and notice the subject?
>
> >Prove it
>
> Prove the global climate has cooled. Get your data
> and process it within the realm of logic and show it
> to the world.
>
> [This Space Reserved for the Sounds of Crickets.]
>
> Prove the warming would somehow benefit humans
> with a more reliably ample water and food supply.
>
> [This Space Reserved for the Sounds of Crickets.]
>
> Prove that you have some love for future generations
> if not for yourself, and consider your legacy to them.
>
> [This Space Reserved for the Sounds of Crickets.]
>
> Until you provide proof on which to base your claims,
> how would you imagine others would consider you?
>
> >... insipid ...-turd.
> >...retard.
> >...making shit up...
>
> Don't be so harsh on yourself: you are probably a victim
> of malnourishment and environmental toxins.
>
> >... god, alpha turd, ...a fool, ass packer.
> >I ...-turd...
>
> Yet enough about you. It's not tyrannical that you be
> expected not to defecate on future humans.
>
> Meanwhile:
>
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> had cattily written:
>
> >Like "earth going around the sun" -- do you feel like you're going
> >round and round? No, so it's obviously a hoax. Bunch socialists came
> >up with the idea, and where's their original data? Heck, Al Gore
> >probably believes the earth goes around the sun, so it's gotta be
> >wrong!
>
> That's superb, in case no one else had mentioned it, yet.
I think we should write down all the names of deniers into a big book
somewhere, so when it comes time to ration food, we know who to put at
the bottom of the list.
They won't mind, after all, because AGW is a big hoax, don't ya know?
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
> "* US *" wrote in messagenews:oe1ik5pc3e91rilrs...@4ax.com...
I think putting Jewish slave labor to work at the Krupp Iron Works and
Ford manufacturing plants qualifies.
Siobhan Medeiros
Really? So how is that possible when N2 and O2 make up only about 95%
of the atmosphere?
>
> Most of the _planetary_ surface heat is in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
Duuuuhhhhhh, yeah. That's why it's called SURFACE heat, moron. Why
did you go from discussing atmospheric heat to surface heat all of a
sudden?
But guess what - the atmosphere and the surface exchange heat all the
time. If they didn't, we'd be like the planet Mercury - boiling hot
on the daylight side and freezing cold on the night side.
> There's also quite a bit of latent heat of water in play, but let's not
> get Morgan any more confused than he already is.
>
Latent heat? Do you even know what that is, moron?
> >> but it doesn't tell the whole story.
>
> > Exactly. In fact it doesn't even tell the beginning, middle or end of
> > the story. Therefore it is gobbledegook.
>
> Only to the sufficiently ignorant.
>
Or to anyone with a grade eight science education.
> >> The amount of
> >> power radiated depends on the temperature/altitude of emission, which
> >> varies with surface temperature, convection, and other parameters.
>
> > Now explain to him the bit you just sneaked in about surface
> > temperature. Or perhaps you'd rather not do that, as it contradicts your
> > own gobbledegook that you have long promulgated on this NG.
>
> It's just the negative feedback mechanism that stabilizes the surface
> temperature. If Morgan had paid attention, he'd know that, if he had
> sufficient physics background to understand it.
>
Really? Then describe that process to us, please.
> >> > like the name of the poster
> >> > himself, yet we're still posting replies trying to explain the
> >> > science to these ignoramuses.They remind me of those nutters who post
> >> > "proofs" of how to trisect an angle or square the circle on the
> >> > Euclidean plane, using just a ruler and compasses.
>
> >> But Morgan still isn't able to refute a single word of the statement.
> >> Why do you suppose that is?
>
> > Why bother. I'll just refer you to the archives of the NG where
> > denialist nonsense has been debunked over and over and over and...
>
> Translation: Morgan has no idea what's going on. He's trying to cheer
> for his side in a game in which he doesn't even know the rules.
>
That's OK, I'll do the refutations for him.
JohnM
I stand corrected - you're an even bigger idiot than he is. The
atmospheric sensible heat has a miniscule relative input to the total
planetary LWIR.
> Most of the _planetary_ surface heat is in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
Doh!
> There's also quite a bit of latent heat of water in play, but let's not
> get Morgan any more confused than he already is.
>
> >> but it doesn't tell the whole story.
>
> > Exactly. In fact it doesn't even tell the beginning, middle or end of
> > the story. Therefore it is gobbledegook.
>
> Only to the sufficiently ignorant.
>
> >> The amount of
> >> power radiated depends on the temperature/altitude of emission, which
> >> varies with surface temperature, convection, and other parameters.
>
> > Now explain to him the bit you just sneaked in about surface
> > temperature. Or perhaps you'd rather not do that, as it contradicts your
> > own gobbledegook that you have long promulgated on this NG.
>
> It's just the negative feedback mechanism that stabilizes the surface
> temperature.
Nope. It's the source of that famous 'grey' body radiation which keeps
us cool. If Ward wasn't so disingenuous he would have mentioned that
himself.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:31:42 -0500, * US * wrote:
> >On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:14:48 -0800 (PST), JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 8, 3:28 am, * US * wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:49:46 -0800 (PST), Paul Linzden <chaotica...@live.com> wrote:
> >>> >On Jan 2, 8:04 am, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Harry Hope wrote:
> >>> >> > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:
> >>> >> >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
> >>> >> CRU emails has proven for all AGW holowarming crap is fabricated.
> >>> >> They need to be prosecuted for stealing public money.
>
> >>> >Hardly. And only in the view of paranoid kooks like you who have no
> >>> >academic standing and no credentials.
>
> >>> >We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization,
> >>> >over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate
> >>> >science researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing columnists, and
> >>> >your own paranoia.
>
> >>> >> Why don't you upload all *YOUR* emails so that we can decide
> >>> >> what you are trying to sell?
>
> >>> >More paranoia.
>
> >>> >How about you? Or are you above this?
>
> >>> >> Holowarming is a hoax
>
> >>> >More paranoia.
>
> >>> >> ---------------------
>
> >>> >> It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
> >>> >> sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
> >>> >> from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
>
> >>> >More paranoia.
>
> >>> >> Its become a means to an end.
>
> >>> >More paranoia.
>
> >>> >> Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
> >>> >> kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
> >>> >> we live without any scientific or material proof.
> >>> >> Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
>
> >>> >More paranoia. Holowarming? Sounds like Holocaust. You're also a
> >>> >Holocaust denier!
>
> >>> >> The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
>
> >>> >Ah! A goosestepping fascist as well. Burn any books lately?
>
> >>> >> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
> >>> >> It is the billions of liters of water in the form
> >>> >> of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
> >>> >> and thats why there is so much of it about.
>
> >>> >Junk science - you don't even have grip on the facts.
>
> >>> >> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
> >>> >> DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
> >>> >> become a major factor to global warming.
> >>> >> They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
> >>> >> to carry heat around the globe.
>
> >>Do these denialists deserve our precious time debunking their
> >>nonsense? This one thinks GHGs retain planetary heat by virtue of
> >>their specific heat capacity, indicating he/she has no clue about the
> >>science involved.
>
> >>notions they continue to repeat them 'ad nauseum'. Better to simply
> >>ignore such rants completely.
>
> >You make a good point, of course.
>
> >The denialist isn't educable, too, often, but he
> >remains identifiable, to at least some purpose.
>
> >On occasion, one hopes that should posterity be
> >considering the actions of our time, they just might
> >be able to see that some were working to defend
> >their interests, in advance.
>
>
> All skeptics do is question, if a "scientist" can't
> take the heat.............
>
> But the premise of AGW, not GW, is flawed in
> several ways. If AGW existed to the extent claimed,
> it would be warmer than 1998,
It is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>or at least a couple of
> years since 1998 would have been warmer, the very
> existence of a plateau is a condemnation of either
> the AGW premise, or it is a strong indication that
> the method or something in constructing the data
> is wrong.
Your premise has been disproven, hence the above paragraph is null and
void.
>
> The AGW nutcases whining here are not even
> able to understand that nothing, NOTHING, but
> GreenHouses - COOL - the atmosphere, instead
> of "trapping" heat.
Soooo...you're saying that greenhouses cool the atmosphere instead of
trapping heat?
Moooooorrrrrrrrooonnnnnnnn.....
> There would be a lapse rate
A what?
> even without GHGs,
> the N2 and O2 atmosphere would be warmer at
> sunrise than it is now, because it could not cool.
>
What? Are you on drugs? "Duh, the atmosphere would be warmer at
sunrise than it is in winter. And the train at 2 'o Clock arrives
before the one in August, and the ocean doesn't get any hotter than
four gallons."
> Does AGW mean "stupid"?
Only if AGW are your initials.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:44:50 -0500, * US * wrote:
> >On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:59:44 -0500, "I M @ goof guy" <I...@goof.guy> wrote:
>
> >>... posterior.
>
> >That's not what you should use to try to type.
>
> >>... nutcases whining here...
>
> >You do that because you have no data.
>
> >Where is your evidence that the global climate is cooling?
>
> I said it isn't warming, if that sinks your boat,
> too bad.
>
> Not a single AGW nutcase has stated that it
> is obvious to them that GreenHouse Gases _ARE_
> what cool the atmosphere, that shows how overly
> fixated they are on the Global Warming garbage.
Duuuuuhhhhhhh...."Duh, I believe in global warming, so I think the
planet is getting cooler".
Fuck, you're stupid.
>
> What will all of you kooks do if an investigation
> shows it never really warmed much at all,
We did that investigation long ago. It showed that it did.
that nature
> and the improper management of constructing the
> data set just made it appear to have warmed?
Yeah, that's right. Umpteen scientists in umpteen countries all made
the same mistake. Suuuuuuurrrreeee.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
> On Jan 1, 1:53 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
> > Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
> > health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
> > doctor.
>
> stop smoking when he sucking on a very large
> havana cigar
>
>
>
> > Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
> > afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
>
> > That drives the point home in a very real way.
>
> > But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
> > the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
> > issue of human-induced climate change.
>
> is invested in selling cancer as a carcinogen.
Oh, you're kidding me? Wow. Cancer is a carcinogen. What a fucking
concept.
Idiot.
>
> My father smoked heavily all his life and died
> at 61 while smoking a cigarette and driving a
> car. My mother never smoked and died in her
> 40's from cancer.
>
And my Uncle Gus fought in WW2 and came home without a scratch. So
much for that bullshit about war being dangerous.
> • There are a million carcinogens floating around
> and no one is greater than another.
LOL! Yeah, everyone knows that there's really no difference between
Febreeze and nerve gas.
>Tobacco,
> however has a dreadful effect on the cardio
> vascular system constricts the tubes. I was
> sharing a cab with a friend from the upper west
> side to the Village. She was sort of a co host at
> the party and she had been running around
> with a carpet slipper on and chain smoking.
> I asked her why the slipper? "I've got an
> infected toe that will not heal". "Did your
> doctor tell you to stop smoking?" "He told me
> to cut down." "Did he mention 'Berger's
> disease. "I suggest you ask him about it because
> the way you are going, you will end up in a
> basket."
>
> Why was I so cruel? Because my cousin lost
> both his legs and eventuall died of cardio
> vascular complications. A month later my
> friend called me for alerting her. She said she
> threw he cigs away and her big toe, shorter a
> bit, but fully healed.
And this proves what, exactly?
That you're a moron?
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Jan 9, 3:01 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
>
>
> > Just admit it. You just put in a new ac unit.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Just admit it, you don't have a case. The AGW crowd got caught
> lying and destroying the peer review process so now nobody has to
> believe a word they say.
LOL..yeah right. Like Ernst Zundel successfully disproved the
Holocaust.
> As for a "crusade" to deny global warming,
> with the funds going WAY more than 90% to those that support it
> it's more like the peasant's crusade, no funding and nobody cares.
> The thing is that lying about what your opponents said (e.g. claiming
> they're horrible people for saying hurricanes haven't gotten worse
> when
> they haven't) gets remembered.
No, they're horrible people because they say hurricanes haven't gotten
worse when they have. It's called lying.
Rightards are so stupid they continue to believe the same lies even
when the liars who invented them have given up on them.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Jan 7, 9:43 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
>
> > > By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> > > Monitor
>
> > > In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> > > authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> > > Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> > > say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
>
> > > The goal of this PR campaign:
>
> > > to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
> > > and coal companies to continue reaping record profits.
>
> > > tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
>
> > > campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
>
> > > Institute, hosts a "smoker's lounge," billed as "the place to go for
> > > sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues."
>
>
> > > smoking is not as bad for you as you've been led to believe.
>
> > > bent on quashing the true libertarian spirit of the nation.
>
> > > By now, not many Americans buy this argument, even those who smoke.
>
>
>
Not analogy. Example.
>
>
>
> > > Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
> > > Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
> > > health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
> > > doctor.
>
> > > Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
> > > afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
>
> > > That drives the point home in a very real way.
>
> > > But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
> > > the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
> > > issue of human-induced climate change.
>
> > > One poll conducted in October by the Pew Research Center found that
> > > the percentage of Americans who believe that there's evidence global
> > > warming is happening shrank from 71 percent in 2008 to 57 percent this
> > > year.
>
> > > A more recent ABC-Washington Post poll found a slightly smaller, but
> > > nonetheless significant drop — from 80 to 72 percent.
>
> > > One of the more notable aspects is how the belief in human-induced
> > > climate change has become a partisan issue.
>
> > > The drop among Republicans and independents is more precipitous than
> > > among Democrats.
>
> > > The Pew poll found that 75 percent of Democrats believe in global
> > > warming, compared to 83 percent last year.
>
> Other polls have put it at 50% among the general population.
>
Probably the same 50% that gave Bush his second term.
> > > But only 53 percent of independents believe, compared to 75 percent
> > > perviously.
>
> > > And just 35 percent of Republicans believe, as opposed to 49 percent
> > > last year.
>
> > > Hoggan argues that these numbers represent a PR coup, a campaign that
> > > he says has succeeded in politicizing science.
>
> > > Previous issues, such as worries over ozone depletion from CFCs in the
> > > 1980s and '90s, never became partisan.
>
> And yet, the ozone hole was never really a threat. It was confined
> to the Antarctic during the nighttime and resulted in no increase
> in UV radiation at the Earth's surface, since it was replinished at
> the Antarctic daybreak.
Bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:160658main2_OZONE_large_350.png
This was taken in 2006 at Antarctic sunset. Does this look
"replenished"?
> Still, at least there was a solution to that
> one: replace CFCs with something else. Simple, painless. There
> is no solution to CO2 production besides impoverishment.
And doing nothing will cost four or five times as much.
> Good
> luck selling that one, even with a whole lotta marketing acumen.
>
You'd rather pay four or five times as much down the road? Fuck, are
you stupid.
> > > The world addressed the problem in a relatively expedient fashion.
>
> > > Not so with the rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
>
> > > We asked Hoggan why he thought public opinion on climate-related
> > > issues has been so easy to manipulate, especially during a period when
> > > scientists have become ever more certain that human activity is
> > > changing Earth's climate.
>
> > > Here are his responses, somewhat edited, to this and other questions:
>
> > > A:
>
> > > We are too easy to manipulate.
>
> Agreed. You are.
You aren't. You're way too ignorant to be persuaded by the truth.
>
> > > There are a number of reasons for that.
>
> > > Two of the most important reasons are:
>
> > > the media are quite easy to manipulate; and we also don't take the
> > > time to understand many of the issues of the day.
>
> > > People are busy.
>
> > > And people have a lot of problems that they're facing.
>
> > > So I think there's a limited capacity to be worried about issues.
>
> On the other hand, there are those who make their living
> promoting hysteria, gettin' out their megaphones and warning
> that the end is nigh, repent of your consumptions for Gaia's
> second coming is at hand.
>
YEah, those scientists driving out to their Antarctic sites in their
limosines, and taking salinity measurements from their private
yachts....
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel people would never lie to us, no sirrreee!
> > > I also think that people are kind of worn out by public relations
> > > spin.
>
> > > They have become very cynical and mistrustful.
>
> > > There are many people who just see science as another point of view.
>
> > > They don't see it as removed from belief and faith as people more
> > > familiar with science would see it.
>
> The problem is that greenolas have been trying to inject
> faith into science for a long time.
>
Riggggghhhhhtttttttt....
> > > That's a scientific literacy issue.
>
> Well, yeah. Greenolas don't even know what chaos is.
> F'r instance, we have this old fart posting around here
> about how the Antarctic is going to melt and that's going
> to cause the Yellowstone caldera to blow its top and
> we have another one who thinks all non-linear systems
> are created equal. A = B = C =.... It's a kind of inverted
> Randianism, I guess.
Really? Tell me, who is this old fart? What is his name? Who does
he work for?
Or is this another tidbit you're pulling out of your ass?
>
> > > And once you politicize science to the point that it's partisan, then
> > > the meaning of what you're talking about, in this case the science of
> > > heat-trapping gases leading to changes in Earth's climate, takes on a
> > > complex worldview and emotional commitment that far exceeds just the
> > > science.
>
> > > The science turns into a threat to a world view, or to democracy and
> > > what the US should stand for.
>
> > > Then it becomes a highly emotionally-charged issue that has nothing to
> > > do with science.
>
> Amen to that. How about we tell all the whackjob greenolas
> to shut up about this until 2100, so the science can just be
> science, rather than a football for greenolas?
>
Sure, you can put your head back in the sand and watch your reality
shows. And when it comes down to rationing food, we'll be sure to put
your name on the bottom of the list.
>
>
>
>
> > > Is there an asymmetry between the two camps — scientists trying to
> > > inform policymakers and the public about humanity's impact on climate
> > > on one side, and the PR campaign you describe arguing that humanity's
> > > impact on climate is minimal or nonexistent, and that doing anything
> > > to curb fossil fuel is impractical and will destroy the economy on the
> > > other?
>
> > > A:
>
> > > I think the advantage here is in the skeptics' court on a number of
> > > fronts.
>
> > > One reason is the enormous amount of money that has gone into doing
> > > basic research on framing the issue and messaging.
>
> > > That information gets passed around and amplified.
>
> Actually, this applies just as much to the enviral hysterical
> jihad.
>
> > > You have a network to create an echo chamber, and you can do it over a
> > > couple of decades — especially when you're only trying to sell doubt.
>
> > > You're not trying to get people to change their way of life, or learn
> > > more, like environmentalists, who need to think about this issue, and
> > > think about options.
>
> > > I'm inclined as an average person to not have any more to worry about.
> > > If there's an easy answer when there's a big problem — in this case,
> > > that the science is full of doubt so action isn't warranted — and I've
> > > already got a lot on my plate, then I'm inclined to accept the
> > > skeptics' message.
>
> The science is full of doubt, because that's what science
> is about. It's the religious environmentalists who are full
> of faith.
*us*
Good point.
I suspect, however, that the cause of this plague
of anti-science, anti-reason, anti-human belief is
already part malnutrition and part exposure to
environmental toxins.
*us*
>... don't know better.
You couldn't start doing the reading at all, could you.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/
You could start with "Basic" and "Global Warming FAQ".
Do let us know when the going gets too difficult for you,
so that we can offer you even more help with it.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:20:22 -0500, "I M @ idiot guy" <I...@idiot.guy> wrote:
I M @ good guy
Once CO2 radiates any energy at all it is
ready to accept more from either collisions with
N2 and O2 or em radiation. If it doesn't absorb
any em, it is cooler than the ambient N2 and O2,
and will absorb sensible heat in the next collision.
>> but it doesn't tell the whole story.
>
>Exactly. In fact it doesn't even tell the beginning, middle or end of
>the story. Therefore it is gobbledegook.
The only gobbledegook is the myth that CO2
is the primary GHG and the world will fry because
of it.
> The amount of
>> power radiated depends on the temperature/altitude of emission, which
>> varies with surface temperature, convection, and other parameters.
>
>Now explain to him the bit you just sneaked in about surface
>temperature. Or perhaps you'd rather not do that, as it contradicts
>your own gobbledegook that you have long promulgated on this NG.
Why don't you explain about the surface temperature,
if the surface is moist, it is losing heat to evaporation at a
far greater rate than from Infra-Red radiation.
If all the AGW alarmist nutcases were to tell
the whole story about water vapor being a better GHG
than CO2 and that water vapor concentrations and
mass are 20 times that of CO2, and that LTE is good
evidence that GHG thermal transfer in the lower
atmosphere is very short range, I would be reading
and not writing.
>> > like the name of the poster
>> > himself, yet we're still posting replies trying to explain the science
>> > to these ignoramuses.They remind me of those nutters who post "proofs"
>> > of how to trisect an angle or square the circle on the Euclidean plane,
>> > using just a ruler and compasses.
>>
>> But Morgan still isn't able to refute a single word of the statement.
>> Why do you suppose that is?
>
>Why bother. I'll just refer you to the archives of the NG where
>denialist nonsense has been debunked over and over and over and...
Refer away, but if it doesn't tell the whole story,
there will be people interested in truth that will look
at it and point out any obvious spin.
More than 80 percent of the energy leaving the
Earth is from GreenHouse Gases in the atmosphere
radiating Infra-Red.
That is obviously the major role of GHGs, and
90 percent of that radiation is from water vapor
or water droplets in clouds.
The partial truth story of CO2 is made up pure
propaganda, at least unless the writers are plain
stupid and close their eyes to everything written
in science books.
The increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is
a serious concern, but it is not an immediate
concern like trying to keep from freezing,
and not as immediate as the need to replace
the fossil fuels that will become in short
supply in a very short time.
Leftists in Britain have been playing down
the need for home heating fuel for some time,
and causing one crisis after another.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/mar/14/6
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/08/gas-crisis-export-europe
But the crisis continues, as long as the cooler
than normal weather lasts there will be an immediate
crisis, as long as everything works ok there may not
be any big disaster, but every home should have
a back-up heating source.
Maybe you don't have the problem of modern
central air furnaces needing a lot of electrical power
to run vent fans, circulating fans and safety controls
resulting in a need for both gas and grid power by
most homes, not everybody has battery backup and
inverters or an auxiliary generator.
Failure to see the problems and assign priorities
seems to be a regular deficiency in AGW nutcase
writing.
And exaggerating the role of CO2 in atmospheric
physics seems to be a mental disease caused by
inflated egos pumped up by hearing "it is getting
hotter all the time".
tg
I don't know, but I plead guilty to being the one who believes that
conservation of energy is a universal. I tried to resist, but those
Commie Socialist Pinko Elitist physics people brainwashed me.
-tg
Last Post
> On Jan 10, 11:28 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:04:49 -0800, JohnM wrote:
> > > On Jan 8, 3:26 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:14:00 -0800 (PST), JohnM
> > >> <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > >> >> >> 99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20. It is the
> > >> >> >> billions of liters of water in the form of clouds in the sky. Two
> > >> >> >> thirds of the planet is water and that's why there is so much of
> > >> >> >> it about.
>
> > >> >> >Junk science - you don't even have grip on the facts.
• Actually the person whose attribution you snipped was right on
target except for a small detail. 97% of the greenhouse gasses is H2O
vapour. The balance, except for a few traces, is CO2
> > >> >> >> The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases DO NOT contribute to
> > >> >> >> global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER become a major factor
> > >> >> >> to global warming. They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O
> > >> >> >> gas to carry heat around the globe.
> > >> >Do these denialists deserve our precious time debunking their
> > >> >nonsense? This one thinks GHGs retain planetary heat by virtue of
> > >> >their specific heat capacity, indicating he/she has no clue about the
> > >> >science involved.
• All the science Nazi John Morgan has could
fit on the head of a pin. He, with his idiotic
verbosity demonstrates his ignorance. He is
so busy with flaming others that he forgets
that is supposed to be a discussion. Of
course it would be helpful if he knew anything
that did not come from the Bible of Algore.
• Tyndall, in the lab, proved that CO2 will absorb
radiative energy. He also proved H2O will not.
Now all of the atmospheric CO2 arises from
warm waters embedded in H2O and carried
upward where it forms
clouds. So how could
that CO2 store sunlight?
IR passes right through the clouds.
• When a cloud bank meets a cold front we get
precip, rain or snow or ..., and when the precip
hits the deck it becomes fertilizer.
• Every year 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 is
converted by photosynthesis into biomass. That
includes everything you eat— your coffee, the
sugar and cream, toast etc etc.
• The reality is that "global warming" is a myth
and does not exist. On the other hand
"Climate Change" is functioning as it has for 5
million years or more.
• The AGW fascists are all tied up in trying to
prove that it exists and what might happen
should AGW exist. Their scientists are busy
on what-if their papers are full of shoulda,
woulda, maybe, might, if, etc., and time
frames are flexible so they can revise them
upward.
Then they abandoned global warming and
to confuse the populace, adopted climate
change which has been working for 500
million years or more.
Others are studying paleologic history and the
history to date. The CO2 data from 1820 is a
revelation, it shows how the guy that fitst got a
computer model to work dropped everything
from 1820 all of which was higher than today,
and cherry-picked only those under 250.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Bill Ward
Google Groups corrupted the file:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
so I'll manually indicate quotes.
[JM]
I stand corrected - you're an even bigger idiot than he is. The
atmospheric sensible heat has a miniscule relative input to the total
planetary LWIR.
[BW]
Now he's beginning to catch on. GHG's don't work by "storing" heat.
> Most of the _planetary_ surface heat is in the oceans, not the
> atmosphere.
[JM]
Doh!
[BW]
Note his attempt to cover his gaffe (or strawman) about "planetary"
heat.
> There's also quite a bit of latent heat of water in play, but let's not
> get Morgan any more confused than he already is.
>
> >> but it doesn't tell the whole story.
>
> > Exactly. In fact it doesn't even tell the beginning, middle or end of
> > the story. Therefore it is gobbledegook.
>
> Only to the sufficiently ignorant.
>
> >> The amount of
> >> power radiated depends on the temperature/altitude of emission, which
> >> varies with surface temperature, convection, and other parameters.
>
> > Now explain to him the bit you just sneaked in about surface
> > temperature. Or perhaps you'd rather not do that, as it contradicts
> > your own gobbledegook that you have long promulgated on this NG.
>
> It's just the negative feedback mechanism that stabilizes the surface
> temperature.
[JM]
Nope. It's the source of that famous 'grey' body radiation which keeps
us cool. If Ward wasn't so disingenuous he would have mentioned that
himself.
[BW]
Everything is disingenuous or "sneaky" to Morgan because he can't keep
up. Others seem to be able to understand the WV negative feedback
concept OK - I've seen it well described several times recently.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Jan 1, 1:49 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > The goal of the "extensive public relations campaign" of us skeptics
> > is to expose AGW as a fraud which itself is the result of an
> > "extensive public relations campaign" that conceals the truth about
> > the lack of scientific support of AGW.
>
> > One extensive public relations campaign vs. another. Why would you
> > expect anything different?
> > > The goal of this PR campaign:
> > > to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
> > > contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,
• Right off the top Hoggan displays his
'desmogbound' ignorance of climate science
• Tyndall, in the lab, proved that CO2 will absorb
radiative energy. He also proved H2O will not.
Now all of the atmospheric CO2 arises from
warm waters embedded in H2O and carried
upward where it forms clouds. So how could
that CO2 store sunlight?
— —
*us*
wrote:
>... ignorance of climate science...
It's all you have.
You have no data.
I M @ good guy
<sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote no science at all, so I deleted the
whole thing.
I M @ good guy
You will never be in charge, smart burro.
>They won't mind, after all, because AGW is a big hoax, don't ya know?
Was...... Now it is just a by-gone joke, only the
parrots haven't learned new words yet.
I M @ good guy
<sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote a bunch of smart mouth nonsense,
so I deleted it all.
I M @ good guy
KMFA.
I M @ good guy
This newsgroup is for discussion of climate science,
not to give a bunch of socialists a place to advertise
an outdated political horror.
Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
>
> > > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
>
> > > By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> > > Monitor
>
> > > In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> > > authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> > > Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> > > say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
> > > human-induced climate change.http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-wa...
>
>
> > > to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
> > > contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases, and to allow oil
> > > and coal companies to continue reaping record profits.
>
> > > tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
>
> > > Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
> > > campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
>
> > > For instance, one major climate skeptic organization, the Heartland
> > > Institute, hosts a "smoker's lounge," billed as "the place to go for
> > > sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues."
>
> > > The message:
>
> > > smoking is not as bad for you as you've been led to believe.
>
> > > It's been unfairly and unduly demonized by "left-liberal" interests
> > > bent on quashing the true libertarian spirit of the nation.
>
> > > By now, not many Americans buy this argument, even those who smoke.
>
> Argument by analogy. Typical greenola ill-logic.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
> > > health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
> > > doctor.
>
> > > Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
> > > afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
>
> > > That drives the point home in a very real way.
>
> > > But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
> > > the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
> > > issue of human-induced climate change.
>
> > > One poll conducted in October by the Pew Research Center found that
> > > the percentage of Americans who believe that there's evidence global
> > > warming is happening shrank from 71 percent in 2008 to 57 percent this
> > > year.
>
> > > A more recent ABC-Washington Post poll found a slightly smaller, but
> > > nonetheless significant drop — from 80 to 72 percent.
>
> > > One of the more notable aspects is how the belief in human-induced
> > > climate change has become a partisan issue.
>
> > > The drop among Republicans and independents is more precipitous than
> > > among Democrats.
>
> > > The Pew poll found that 75 percent of Democrats believe in global
> > > warming, compared to 83 percent last year.
>
> Other polls have put it at 50% among the general population.
>
> > > perviously.
>
> > > And just 35 percent of Republicans believe, as opposed to 49 percent
> > > last year.
>
> > > Hoggan argues that these numbers represent a PR coup, a campaign that
> > > he says has succeeded in politicizing science.
>
> > > Previous issues, such as worries over ozone depletion from CFCs in the
> > > 1980s and '90s, never became partisan.
>
> And yet, the ozone hole was never really a threat. It was confined
> to the Antarctic during the nighttime and resulted in no increase
> in UV radiation at the Earth's surface, since it was replinished at
> one: replace CFCs with something else. Simple, painless. There
> luck selling that one, even with a whole lotta marketing acumen.
>
>
> > > Not so with the rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
>
> > > We asked Hoggan why he thought public opinion on climate-related
> > > issues has been so easy to manipulate, especially during a period when
> > > scientists have become ever more certain that human activity is
> > > changing Earth's climate.
>
> > > Here are his responses, somewhat edited, to this and other questions:
>
> > > A:
>
> > > We are too easy to manipulate.
>
> Agreed. You are.
>
>
> > > Two of the most important reasons are:
>
> > > the media are quite easy to manipulate; and we also don't take the
> > > time to understand many of the issues of the day.
>
> > > People are busy.
>
> > > And people have a lot of problems that they're facing.
>
> > > So I think there's a limited capacity to be worried about issues.
>
> On the other hand, there are those who make their living
> promoting hysteria, gettin' out their megaphones and warning
> that the end is nigh, repent of your consumptions for Gaia's
> second coming is at hand.
>
> > > spin.
>
> > > They have become very cynical and mistrustful.
>
> > > There are many people who just see science as another point of view.
>
> > > They don't see it as removed from belief and faith as people more
> > > familiar with science would see it.
>
> The problem is that greenolas have been trying to inject
> faith into science for a long time.
>
>
> Well, yeah. Greenolas don't even know what chaos is.
> F'r instance, we have this old fart posting around here
> about how the Antarctic is going to melt and that's going
> to cause the Yellowstone caldera to blow its top and
> we have another one who thinks all non-linear systems
> are created equal. A = B = C =.... It's a kind of inverted
> Randianism, I guess.
>
> > > the meaning of what you're talking about, in this case the science of
> > > heat-trapping gases leading to changes in Earth's climate, takes on a
> > > complex worldview and emotional commitment that far exceeds just the
> > > science.
>
> > > The science turns into a threat to a world view, or to democracy and
> > > what the US should stand for.
>
> > > Then it becomes a highly emotionally-charged issue that has nothing to
> > > do with science.
>
> Amen to that. How about we tell all the whackjob greenolas
> to shut up about this until 2100, so the science can just be
> science, rather than a football for greenolas?
>
>
>
>
>
Which is why creationists and AGW conspiracy theorists are against
every institution of higher education except Liberty U.
Bret Cahill
Siobhan Medeiros
Then you won't mind volunteering to put yourself at the bottom of the
list.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
We said heat, retard, not sunlight.
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:58:09 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
> whole thing.
Well, let's let the readers decide, shall we? Here, I unsnipped it.
Nice try at censorship, though.
Siobhan Medeiros
View profile
More options Jan 11, 12:58 am
On Jan 1, 1:49 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:53 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
> > James Hoggan talks about global warming
> > By Moises Velasquez-Manoff Staff writer of The Christian Science
> > Monitor
> > In the book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,"
> > authors James Hoggan, co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, and Richard
> > Littlemore detail an extensive public relations campaign that, they
> > say, aims to sow doubt in the public mind about the science of
> > human-induced climate change.
> The goal of the "extensive public relations campaign" of us skeptics
> is to expose AGW as a fraud which itself is the result of an
> "extensive public relations campaign" that conceals the truth about
> the lack of scientific support of AGW.
> One extensive public relations campaign vs. another. Why would you
> expect anything different?
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1224/Global-wa...
> > The goal of this PR campaign:
> > to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
> > contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,
> Yes.
> > and to allow oil
> > and coal companies to continue reaping record profits.
> BS. Why would we care about this?
> ]
Because fossils fuels are the source of most man-made CO2 emissions,
and any meaningful reform will cut into your profits.
> > The authors equate the tactics in this "coverup" to those employed by
> > tobacco companies in their four-decade-long fight against regulation.
> Back atcha.
I'm sorry, was this supposed to be clever?
> > Indeed, as they point out, many of the scientists involved in that
> > campaign have also lent their voice to the climate skeptic cause.
> Who cares.
Anyone who cares about the truth.
> > For instance, one major climate skeptic organization, the Heartland
> > Institute, hosts a "smoker's lounge," billed as "the place to go for
> > sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues."
> Yeah, so?
So it proves these guys are in the business of disseminating
bullshit.
> > The message:
> > smoking is not as bad for you as you've been led to believe.
> Wrong issue. If AGW stood on it's own merits you would have no need
> for this desperation tactic.
Someone who lies about one thing will probably lie about another.
> > It's been unfairly and unduly demonized by "left-liberal" interests
> > bent on quashing the true libertarian spirit of the nation.
> > By now, not many Americans buy this argument, even those who smoke.
> > Asked why this message is no longer effective with regards to tobacco,
> > Mr. Hoggan points out that the news that smoking was bad for one's
> > health often came from a trusted and familiar source, the family
> > doctor.
> > Also, he says, a large swath of Americans know someone who's been
> > afflicted with a smoking-related illness.
> > That drives the point home in a very real way.
> > But while these arguments are touted with decreasing effectiveness in
> > the tobacco arena, they're used with growing effectiveness around the
> > issue of human-induced climate change.
> > One poll conducted in October by the Pew Research Center found that
> > the percentage of Americans who believe that there's evidence global
> > warming is happening shrank from 71 percent in 2008 to 57 percent this
> > year.
> It's going to continue to shrink. People see through the kind of
> whacko arguments you are presenting here.
Probably because Americans are continuing to get dumber.
> > A more recent ABC-Washington Post poll found a slightly smaller, but
> > nonetheless significant drop — from 80 to 72 percent.
> > One of the more notable aspects is how the belief in human-induced
> > climate change has become a partisan issue.
> Gee, do ya think.
And this is a good thing because....
> > The drop among Republicans and independents is more precipitous than
> > among Democrats.
> > The Pew poll found that 75 percent of Democrats believe in global
> > warming, compared to 83 percent last year.
> > But only 53 percent of independents believe, compared to 75 percent
> > perviously.
> > And just 35 percent of Republicans believe, as opposed to 49 percent
> > last year.
> > Hoggan argues that these numbers represent a PR coup, a campaign that
> > he says has succeeded in politicizing science.
> Yep. We got you whackos on the run.
A whacko is someone who ignores empirical evidence. History is full
of fools who ignored sound warnings and paid a heavy price for it.
> > Previous issues, such as worries over ozone depletion from CFCs in the
> > 1980s and '90s, never became partisan.
> > The world addressed the problem in a relatively expedient fashion.
> > Not so with the rising concentrations of heat-trapping gases.
> Yeah, I think you missed your window of opportunity about three or
> four years ago. You've been fighting an uphill battle ever since. It
> was apparent Copenhagen would be a bust even before climategate. The
> ozone hole (CFC) scam, with its relatively modest reach into the
> taxpayer's pockets, should have been the model you followed.
What, you're saying that NASA faked those pictures of the ozone hole?
>You got
> greedy. You blew it. Let that be a lesson to you envirofraudsters to
> cash in your chips while the getting is good
They didn't get greedy. You got stupid.
> > We asked Hoggan why he thought public opinion on climate-related
> > issues has been so easy to manipulate, especially during a period when
> > scientists have become ever more certain that human activity is
> > changing Earth's climate.
> > Here are his responses, somewhat edited, to this and other questions:
> > A:
> > We are too easy to manipulate.
> On this we agree.
> > There are a number of reasons for that.
> > Two of the most important reasons are:
> > the media are quite easy to manipulate; and we also don't take the
> > time to understand many of the issues of the day.
> Andy Revkin and his cohorts are perfect examples.
This guy missed "total lack of education'.
> > People are busy.
> > And people have a lot of problems that they're facing.
> > So I think there's a limited capacity to be worried about issues.
> > I also think that people are kind of worn out by public relations
> > spin.
> > They have become very cynical and mistrustful.
> > There are many people who just see science as another point of view.
> > They don't see it as removed from belief and faith as people more
> > familiar with science would see it.
> > That's a scientific literacy issue.
> > And once you politicize science to the point that it's partisan, then
> > the meaning of what you're talking about, in this case the science of
> > heat-trapping gases leading to changes in Earth's climate, takes on a
> > complex worldview and emotional commitment that far exceeds just the
> > science.
> The thing that defeated AGW more than anything else was conceptual
> clarity. AGW fraudsters failed to fully obscure the science. This
> gave skeptics a leg up in further expose the fraud.
Uh huh. Right. So what's causing the ocean levels to increase? The
glaciers to melt?
Idiots like you will probably still be denying it after they're
treading water in Central Park.
> > The science turns into a threat to a world view, or to democracy and
> > what the US should stand for.
> > Then it becomes a highly emotionally-charged issue that has nothing to
> > do with science.
> > Q:
> > Is there an asymmetry between the two camps — scientists trying to
> > inform policymakers and the public about humanity's impact on climate
> > on one side, and the PR campaign you describe arguing that humanity's
> > impact on climate is minimal or nonexistent, and that doing anything
> > to curb fossil fuel is impractical and will destroy the economy on the
> > other?
> > A:
> > I think the advantage here is in the skeptics' court on a number of
> > fronts.
> > One reason is the enormous amount of money that has gone into doing
> > basic research on framing the issue and messaging.
> Skeptic funding is a drop in the bucket compared to AGW funding. The
> AGW alarmist had/have their hands in the deepest pocket on this
> planet, the american government.
Ohhhhhh,riiiiigggghhhhttttt, yeah those climate scientists, live like
kings, going out to Antarctic sites in limos and taking salinity
readings from their private yachts.
Moron.
> Obama's Nobel prize should be shared by all the taxpayer. Afterall,
> we're the ones that paid for it.
Really? Then, by that logic, anyone who got a Nobel Prize should
share it with the taxpayers.
> > That information gets passed around and amplified.
> > You have a network to create an echo chamber, and you can do it over a
> > couple of decades — especially when you're only trying to sell doubt.
> > You're not trying to get people to change their way of life, or learn
> > more, like environmentalists, who need to think about this issue, and
> > think about options.
> > I'm inclined as an average person to not have any more to worry about.
> > If there's an easy answer when there's a big problem — in this case,
> > that the science is full of doubt so action isn't warranted — and I've
> > already got a lot on my plate, then I'm inclined to accept the
> > skeptics' message.
> > The situation is suited to people who are up to mischief.
> Kettle, pot, bang!
Moron, idiot, retard.
> > Q:
> > What can people do?
> > A:
> > The reason we wrote this book is that we feel we understand the public
> > relations behind the campaign and the public's growing confusion on
> > the issue.
> > One of the things that solves the problem of being manipulated is
> > awareness.
> > Deceit loses its power when people become aware of it.
> > So we, as citizens, need to demand more of ourselves, of the media we
> > read, and we need to stop either manipulating public opinion, or being
> > manipulated by it.
> > Creating awareness is the first step.
> I think climategate was more awareness than you can handle. Are you
> sure you want more?
Climategate was a joke. Two out-of-context emails creating a tempest
in a teapot.
Meanwhile, practically every nation's main scientific body agrees
that
global warming is real and man is causing it. (Including the National
Academy of Sciences and NASA), but these retards are yelling
"conspiracy". Fuck, if anyone could pull off a conspiracy that big,
they'd deserve to rule the world.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Jan 1, 5:51 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> On Jan 1, 1:53 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > From The Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/09:http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/270936
>
> > > James Hoggan talks about global warming
>
>
> BTW - My father died @61 from smoking
> (cardiac disease). My mother died from cancer
> never smoked a day in her life.
>
> — —
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> | they provided data that climate change is being
> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> | natural phenomena
And my Uncle Gus fought in WW2 and came back without a scratch. So
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:14:00 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
> so I deleted it all.
"good guy" couldn't answer any of the points made, so he deleted them
all in a display of cowardice. So I but them back.
- Hide quoted text -
Siobhan Medeiros
Kick your fucking ass? Gladly.
*us*
>... just a by-gone joke ...
You're a laughingstock because you have no data, denier.
"Anthropogenic global warming is based on very solid science."
*us*
>On Jan 11, 9:07�am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> > On Jan 1, 1:49 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > > The goal of the "extensive public relations campaign" of us skeptics
>> > > is to expose AGW as a fraud which itself is the result of an
>> > > "extensive public relations campaign" that conceals the truth about
>> > > the lack of scientific support of AGW.
>>
>> > > One extensive public relations campaign vs. another. �Why would you
>> > > expect anything different?
>> > > > The goal of this PR campaign:
>> > > > to forestall meaningful action on curbing fossil fuel use, a major
>> > > > contributor to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,
>>
>> � Right off the top Hoggan displays his
>> � � 'desmogbound' ignorance of climate science
>>
>> � Tyndall, in the lab, proved that CO2 will absorb
>> ? � �radiative energy. He also proved H2O will not.
>> � � Now all of the atmospheric CO2 arises from
>> � � warm waters embedded in H2O and carried
>> � � upward where it forms clouds. So how could
>> � � that CO2 store sunlight?
>>
>> � � � �
>> �| In real science the burden of proof is always
>> �| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
>> �| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
>> �| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
>> �| they provided data that climate change is being
>> �| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
>> �| natural phenomena
>
>We said heat, retard, not sunlight.
Good point.
*us*
>... no science at all, so I ...
So you're still merely a laughingstock, denier.
" The verdict is in. Modern global warming stemming to a considerable extent from
anthropogenic causes is real and constitutes a serious threat to life on the planet as we
know it. It is time to stop debating its reality and to do something about it, while there
is still time."
*us*
> This newsgroup is for discussion of climate science,
So where's your climate science?
Orval Fairbairn
> http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php
According to the above link, water vapor's contribution to temperature
is 36% to 66%, while CO2 is 9% to 26%. Cherry picking yields a high CO2
influence.
Also:
"Solar Variability
In addition to Milankovitch cycles and the enhanced greenhouse effect,
another possible cause of climate change is solar variability. Since
1979, spacecraft-borne instruments have recorded variations in the sun's
output, on time scales ranging from minutes to decades. The largest
short-term dips of 0.3 percent last about a month, and are associated
with sunspots that are carried across the face of the sun. (The sun's
rotation rate has a period of twenty-seven days.) The eleven-year
sunspot cycle is associated with changes in the sun's output of about
0.1 percent.
There are no precise measurements of the solar output before 1979, and
no direct measurements at all before about 1900. Instead, climate
scientists rely on proxy indicators of solar activity, isotopes in
cosmic rays, carbon-14 (14C) and beryllium-10 (10Be), which are found in
tree rings and ice deposits, respectively. This record stretches back
thousands of years."
0.3% of roughly 300 deg C is 2.7 deg C, which is more than the alleged
CO2 influence. The 11-year sunspot cycle yields 0.9 deg C.
It sounds to me as if the AGW people are barking up the wrong tree!
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
*us*
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:47:14 -0500, Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote:
>According to the above link...
Global climate is showing increased temperatures, and human
activities contribute to those temperature increases. That's
even though Exxon doesn't want you to know that, only
have to pay for it, exhorbitantly, along with your kids
and your grandkids, if any.
>It sounds to me ...
The voices in your head are lying to you. Try reading some
actual scientific works, for comprehension, instead, if you can.
Here's more:
http://www.scienceinschool.org/2008/issue8/climate
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/30/0152244/Where-the-Global-Warming-Data-Is?from=rss
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_05/
I M @ good guy
The snow and the thermometer trump what
NASA says, web pages are rarely timely.
Don't get your hopes up on expanded funding,
money is getting tight faster than the globe is
warming.
*us*
> The snow and the thermometer...
They don't back up your silly claims, denier.
I M @ good guy
I don't know about Exxon, BP is the big company
here, and they are very energy conscious.
*us*
> I don't know
That was already obvious about you.
You may be unable to find out.
>... BP is the big company
>here, and they are very energy conscious.
" there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and
well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human
influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the
increase in temperature."
See also: