- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,594
- Reactions
- 7,472
. The now-defunct Global Climate Coalition (GCC) included Exxon-Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, American Petroleum Institute, Shell, Texaco, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, and the American Forest and Paper Association. The GCC, established in 1989, operated from the offices of the National Association of Manufacturing. The GCC hired a PR firm which produced a video to combat the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. However, some of its member companies left the GCC; they thought it too risky to be publicly identified with global-warming denial, and feared the fate of Big Tobacco; it had ended up losing lawsuits for health-care costs of smokers, ultimately settling for damages of $251 billion. Beset by the defections, the GCC disbanded in 2001.
During its lifetime, the GCC established a research arm, the Science and Technology Assessment Committee, which was staffed by industry scientists. A committee led by Mobil Oil chemical engineer L. C. Bernstein produced a confidential 1995 report which was circulated to the members of GCC: oil and coal companies, electric utilities, attorneys, National Mining Association, etc. In a stunning admission, the Bernstein Report concluded that “the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” The report knocked down one of the most popular contrarian arguments: that global warming could be attributed to changes in the Sun’s brightness. In opposition to the contrarian view, the Bernstein Report stated that changes in the brightness of the Sun were too small by at least a factor of five to cause the temperature change observed in the last 120 years. It pointed out that the deniers had no alternative theory of their own, saying “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”
Thus, while the oil companies and their hired hands were proclaiming in public that global warming was not caused by burning fossil fuels, their own scientists were saying exactly the opposite in private. If you have never heard of the Bernstein Report, you have lots of company. It did not surface until 2007, a dozen years after it was written, during a discovery process in a California court proceeding.
...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.
...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!
I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)
Curious facts about Climate Change denial.
Did you know that one of the foremost cliamte change denial bodies in fact commissioned a study that explicitly acknowledged the effect of green house gases and its effect on the climate ?
http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda
basilio claims to have a sound scientific undersatnding of climate science, yet comes on here playing an obnoxious political hand.... and there is that putrid "denier" name-calling again.
Absolutely disgraceful.
Surely you are are not "denying" natural and non-co2 anthropogenic factors in climate change?
After all the more recent science on solar vectors, you won't accept the same?
The more you write, the further down the slippery slope, of sleazy sloppy non-science you slide basilio.
Here's a challenge for you, set aside you self centered mercantile interests and consider science in toto.
Go ahead and shock us all with some balanced scientific analysis.
The Anatomy of the Global Warming Denial Industry
John W. Farley
more on Environment/Science
Print | Email | PDF
John W. Farley teaches physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “Our Last Chance to Save Humanity?” a review of James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren, appeared in Monthly Review in September 2010. He blogs at rabett.blogspot.com.
James Lawrence Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 232 pages, $27.95, hardcover.
James Powell was inspired to write this important new book because of a remarkable paradox: among climate scientists, there is a near-unanimous consensus that global warming is occurring now, is largely human-made, and will cause very severe environmental problems if humanity continues business as usual. However, among the lay public the picture is much more mixed: only about half of the U.S. public agrees with the climate scientists. Why the enormous discrepancy?
Powell argues that “in the denial of global warming, we are witnessing the most vicious, and so far most successful, attack on science in history.” Although Powell himself is not a climate science researcher, he has an appropriate background to understand the field: he holds a doctorate in geochemistry from MIT and became a geology professor, teaching at Oberlin College for over twenty years. He has been a college president at three institutions, and served for a dozen years on the National Science Board. Powell’s book is a sharp attack on the global-warming denial “industry,” a network comprised of corporate funding, think tanks, popularizers, and propagandists, who all work with a compliant mass media.
...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.
...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!
I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)
bumpity bump.bump
Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.
Basilio you have disingenuously and dishonourably ducked the issue I've raised and requested you respond to - that you have made a political point with>20 year old documents that do not reflect the current state of science.
I ask again, do you reject the influence of solar cycles on our climate, at least in part?
...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.
...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!
I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)
bump
Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.
basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!
Badilio,
Scientists cannot be more sure, if they are considering science in toto. More shrill, certainly, but not more sure.
The IPCC is hoist by its own petard, for instance. The purported 95% certainty skewered by its very own document, the gap in logic rendering the latest document no better that toilet paper and an acute embarrassment to true scientists.
Good gracious Wayne, what on earth are you talking about these days? This is complete nonsense. You used to be quite sensible - wrong, but sensible. What's happened??
...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.
...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!
I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)
bump
bumpity bump.
Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.
basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!
Around we go again!
bump.
Basilio misses the point and just goes ad hom, true to form. Moncktons broader level of mendacity is neither here nor there - several from your side have been caught out as pathological liars and borderline criminals also. But I refer to a specific, objective point he makes regarding statistics. As for the rest of it... I am also not keen on his modus operandi so lets disregard that.
A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky
As the judge green-lights his libel suit, the defendants' lawyers jump ship.
””By Mariah Blake
| Fri Jan. 24, 2014 3:00 AM GMT
Tweet
OklahomaHorizonTV/YouTube
In 2012””after writers for National Review and a prominent conservative think tank accused him of fraud and compared him to serial child molester Jerry Sandusky””climate scientist Michael Mann took the bold step of filing a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, citing a Washington, DC, law that shields journalists from frivolous litigation. But on Wednesday, DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial.
Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist's complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion," which is protected by the First Amendment:
Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.
Weisberg's order is just the latest in a string of setbacks that have left the climate change skeptics' case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.
...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.
...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.
basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!
I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)
bump
bumpity bump.
Cynic your views on why we need to artificially produce more CO2 are too way out there for me to want to engage you in discussion.
When you went on to say that the Max Planck institute didn't know what it was talking about with regard to the Theory Of Relativity I just gave up.
basilio, since when did mammalian respiration become an artificial process?
You've accused me of "slaughtering a thousand scientific facts" with my CO2 observation whilst failing to provide so much as a single one of these purported "facts".
The fact that you do not understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theorem is hardly a valid (or logical) justification for your refusal to substantiate your hasty and misinformed accusations!
If you're willing to make accusations on a public forum, then it is reasonable to expect to be called upon for justification!
Around we go again!
bump.
bumpity bump.
People won’t panic! Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, February 6:
AUSTRALIANS rank climate change well down on their list of concerns ... according to an annual survey ... by the CSIRO. On a list of 16 issues ... climate change came in at just 14th.
SCIENTISTS say a temporary increase in cat fertility in the Pacific is the explanation for a pause in global warming ... an Australian-led team ... has found that an uptick in the breeding of cats in the Pacific region is most likely to be behind the hiatus. The study found that the cats were spewing fur balls like a washing machine, insulating the Earth from the warmer climate and burying the excess heat in the fur balls ... Professor Gatto said. “ ... We’re about 12 to 13 years into the most accelerated part of the cat breeding spurt. It’s important to point out there’s a cycle we expect to reverse and when they do reverse ... we’d expect global warming to kick in and start to rise ... We want the community to have confidence in the climate models. They are very good, but in this instance the cat breeding acceleration has been ... much stronger than what the models projected ... The CSARO’s Mike Mensonge said understanding the cat-breeding cycle was the key to understanding climate change. “What’s not commonly understood is that when we talk about global warming, we mean cat breeding. Over the last 50 years, 90 per cent of the extra heat stored by the Earth is found in fur balls. So if we want to track how climate is changing, we need to be looking at fur balls.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?