Jump to content
ConConfounder

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

Recommended Posts

The anti-science and corrupt denial of the scientifically confirmed fact of human caused global warming and its consequent (disastrous for humanity) climate changes is funded and pushed by the fossil fuel industry for the simple reason that any real actions to drastically reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that are ruining the Earth, would also enormously reduce the profits and stock prices of the fossil fuel industry. Their stock prices depend on their long range profit forcasts which are largely based on their oil, gas and coal leases on fossil fuels that are still safely sequestered underground. If governments, very appropriately, cancel the leases and declare that all fossil,fuels still underground have to stay there, the industry's stock prices would crash. So they have engaged in a massive and expensive propaganda campaign to deceive the public and delay action on the climate change crisis, to the detriment of all humanity and the entire natural ecology of the Earth. They don't worry so much about deceiving government officials, like American Congressmen, because they know they can just bribe the Republicans.

 

Here's a good rundown of their schemes and tricks.....

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

 

The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.

 

Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change. School climate strikesExtinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis. 

 

But this means lobbying has changed, now employing more subtle and more vicious approaches – what has been termed as “climate sadism”. It is used to mock young people going on climate protests and to ridicule Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old young woman with Asperger’s, who is simply telling the scientific truth. 

file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png Anti-climate change lobbying spend by the five largest publicly-owned fossil fuel companies.StatistaCC BY-SA

 

At such a crossroads, it is important to be able to identify the different types of denial. The below taxonomy will help you spot the different ways that are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.

1. Science denial

This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.

 

Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).

 

All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.

 

Read more: Five climate change science misconceptions – debunked

 

file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb

Model reconstruction of global temperature since 1970. Average of the models in black with model range in grey compared to observational temperature records from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Cowtan and Way, and Berkeley Earth.Carbon BriefCC BY

 

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.

 

It says it is “open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated”. In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science. 

2. Economic denial

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

 

We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5%. So setting aside just 1% to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money. What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6% of world GDP. 

 

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

3. Humanitarian denial

Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the 2010 “Moscow” heatwave killed 11,000 people, devastated the Russian wheat harvest and increased global food prices. 

file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=r Geographical zones of the world. The tropical zones span from the Tropic of Cancer in the North to the Tropic of Capricorn in the South (red shaded region) and contains 40% of the World population.Maulucioni/WikipediaCC BY-SA

 

Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser. This is indeed true and the land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter of our carbon dioxide pollution every year. Another quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect.

 

Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.

This argument is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones. This may even be an underestimate as many heat-related deaths are recorded by cause of death such as heart failure, stroke, or respiratory failure, all of which are exacerbated by excessive heat.

 

file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb US weather fatalities for 2018 alongside the ten- and 30-year average.National Weather ServiceCC BY

4. Political denial

Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. But not all countries are equally guilty of causing current climate change. For example, 25% of the human-produced CO₂ in the atmosphere is generated by the US, another 22% is produced by the EU. Africa produces just under 5%.

 

Given the historic legacy of greenhouse gas pollution, developed countries have an ethical responsibility to lead the way in cutting emissions. But ultimately, all countries need to act because if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go carbon zero by 2050.

 

file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb- Per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions and cumulative country emissions. Data from the Global Carbon Project.Nature. Data from the Global Carbon Project

 

Deniers will also tell you that there are problems to fix closer to home without bothering with global issues. But many of the solutions to climate change are win-win and will improve the lives of normal people. Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people’s overall health.

5. Crisis denial

The final piece of climate change denial is the argument that we should not rush into changing things, especially given the uncertainty raised by the other four areas of denial above. Deniers argue that climate change is not as bad as scientists make out. We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change. They also play on our emotions as many of us don’t like change and can feel we are living in the best of times – especially if we are richer or in power.

 

But similarly hollow arguments were used in the past to delay ending slavery, granting the vote to women, ending colonial rule, ending segregation, decriminalising homosexuality, bolstering worker’s rights and environmental regulations, allowing same sex marriages and banning smoking. 

 

The fundamental question is why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a link to a long and excellent article that everyone visiting this thread should read.  

 

It demolishes the hysteria of AGWalarmists like pogorocks.  

 

I’ll just repeat the introduction and the end of the article to peak your interest    


https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/
 

Quote

 

Putting Climate Change Claims to the Test


Date: 18/06/19


Dr John Christy


This is a full transcript of a talk given by Dr John Christy to the GWPF on Wednesday 8th May.


When I grew up in the world of science, science was understood as a method of finding information. You would make a claim or a hypothesis, and then test that claim against independent data. If it failed, you rejected your claim and you went back and started over again. What I’ve found today is that if someone makes a claim about the climate, and someone like me falsifies that claim, rather than rejecting it, that person tends to just yell louder that their claim is right. They don’t look at what the contrary information might say.

 

…  snip …

 

I have three conclusions for my talk:


Theoretical climate modelling is deficient for describing past variations. Climate models fail for past variations, where we already know the answer. They’ve failed hypothesis tests and that means they’re highly questionable for giving us accurate information about how the relatively tiny forcing, and that’s that little guy right there, will affect the climate of the future.


The weather we really care about isn’t changing, and Mother Nature has many ways on her own to cause her climate to experience considerable variations in cycles. If you think about how many degrees of freedom are in the climate system, what a chaotic nonlinear, dynamical system can do with all those degrees of freedom, you will always have record highs, record lows, tremendous storms and so on. That’s the way that system is.


And lastly, carbon is the world’s dominant source of energy today, because it is affordable and directly leads to poverty eradication as well as the lengthening and quality enhancement of human life. Because of these massive benefits, usage is rising around the world, despite calls for its limitation.

 


:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

Below is a link to a long and excellent article that everyone visiting this thread should read.  

 

It's author, Dr John Christy  opposes the views of the vast majority of scientists and meteorologists.  He is a far right wing Conservative.  He is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy.  He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. 

 

Quote

Climate misinformation by source: John Christy

Dr. John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth ... Dr. Christy believes that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity's ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

It's author, Dr John Christy  opposes the views of the vast majority of scientists and meteorologists.  He is a far right wing Conservative.  He is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy.  He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. 

 

 

Here ^^^^^ is another AGWalarmist who debates like a 911Truther ... not by actually debating what's fact or the logic used to interpret the facts, but by attacking the source.   He ignore the fact that many of the most prominent AGWalarmist scientists, like James Hansen, were/are far leftists.   bludog is doing the same thing leftists are doing with the issue of intent.   They prosecute if conservatives have "intent" (in their opinion) but don't prosecute even when leftists CLEARLY have intent.    Just read the article by Dr Christy, folks.   He makes a great case against AGWalarmist, summarizing many of the facts and logic that I and others on this forum have repeatedly mentioned on this forum ... facts and logic that leftists like bludog just run from EVERY TIME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Here ^^^^^ is another AGWalarmist who debates like a 911Truther ... not by actually debating what's fact or the logic used to interpret the facts, but by attacking the source.   Never mind that many of the most prominent AGWalarmist scientists, like James Hansen, were/are far leftists.   bludog is doing the same thing leftists are doing with the issue of intent.   They prosecute if conservatives have "intent" (in their opinion) but don't prosecute even when leftists CLEARLY have intent.    Just read the article by Dr Christy, folks.   He makes a great case against AGWalarmist, summarizing many of the facts and logic that I and others on this forum have repeatedly mentioned on this forum ... facts and logic that leftists like bludog just run from EVERY TIME.

 

Complete bullshyt!

 

Your sources are corrupt stooges for the fossil fuel industry who have been exposed as liars multiple times.

 

You are a troll!

 

The actual scientific facts about human caused global warming/climate changes can be found here....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, maineman said:

Isn't it odd that it seems like the only folks who deny AGW are conservatives?

 

Isn't it odd that the only folks who are Satan-worshipping, c/sucking, queers...... are all voting Dem?

Isn't that strange?   😎……(it's 5 o'clock somewhere)……...🍸.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ConConfounder said:

 

Yeah they will never be able to get through there thick skulls that 97% of scientist agree that Climate Change is real.... lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

Yeah they will never be able to get through there thick skulls that 97% of scientist agree that Climate Change is real.... lol 

 

Yeah, 97% of all scientists.  Right?   Say, do you have a link to that?  lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 

Yeah they will never be able to get through there thick skulls that 97% of scientist agree that Climate Change is real.... lol 

Hey little boy,

Are you lonesome without your mommy?  Did mommy not love you enough?

Wouldn't you feel safer.....in a safe space......like L.O. ??

Hmmmmmmm……..???               😎…..🍸.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, maineman said:

sez two scientists and a statistician?

 

wow.

Northern New York reported 37" of snow.  Thanksgiving weekend.

 

That tells me one thing. The dumb white bastards in Maine are up to the eyeballs.....in snow.  

And winter hasn't even started yet.  Ohhhh…...my.

Heheheheeeee………...😎…...🍸.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Taipan said:

Northern New York reported 37" of snow.  Thanksgiving weekend.

 

That tells me one thing. The dumb white bastards in Maine are up to the eyeballs.....in snow.  

And winter hasn't even started yet.  Ohhhh…...my.

Heheheheeeee………...😎…...🍸.

 

 

New York gets lake effect snow.  In Maine, we have about 4 inches on the ground and it's gonna be rainy and near 50 degrees tomorrow and near 55 on Tuesday so all the white stuff we be gone by midweek.  I can't REMEMBER the last time it ever got above 50 in Maine in December. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Yeah, 97% of all scientists.  Right?   Say, do you have a link to that?  lol

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.
 

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Taipan said:

Hey little boy,

Are you lonesome without your mommy?  Did mommy not love you enough?

Wouldn't you feel safer.....in a safe space......like L.O. ??

Hmmmmmmm……..???               😎…..🍸.

 

STFU BOOMER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.
 

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

wow... you rammed that right back up beach oozer's well traveled ass!

 

well done!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maineman said:

wow... you rammed that right back up beach oozer's well traveled ass!

 

well done!!!

 

damn right when they say prove it we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 

damn right when they say prove it we do.

bravo zulu

 

(that's navy talk for "well done")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree

 

You didn't qualify your statement as "actively publishing climate scientists".  You said "97% of scientist".  

 

But even so, your revised claim is false, too.  

 

Here's an article that proves it ...

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/23/america-being-misled-by-cook-oreskes-lewendowsky-and-maibach/

 

And here's a post I made that proves it ...

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/262089-if-you-are-still-trying-to-sell-global-warming-is-a-hoax/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1061204527

 

Only the latest of MANY posts on this forum proving the 97% consensus argument is bogus.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, maineman said:

wow... you rammed that right back up beach oozer's well traveled ass!

 

well done!!!

 

LOL!  

 

mm has been hiding from my posts for ages now.  

 

He went behind the ignore filter after he found himself incapable of debating me.

 

Now he tries to bask in the perceived success of others debating me.

 

Although he only sees one side of the debate.   

 

He must not realize that the poster claimed that 97% "OF SCIENTISTS" support AGWalarmism.

 

And the poster didn't prove that.

 

He just cited one study claiming 97% of a very small group of scientists believe in AGWalarmism.

 

And being in hiding, mm will have missed my response which provides several links to proof that even that reduced claim isn't true.

 

Such is the dilemma of a COWARD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, zkyllonen8 said:

 

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

 

Say, z ... would you like to debate what that chart actually shows?  

 

No denying that it shows the earth's temperature warming, but what makes you think man has to do with that?

 

And what makes you think those temperatures are accurate?

 

Here, for example, is a post that proves NASA, your source for that chart has been manipulating temperatures to make warming look worse than it is:

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/269848-breaking-nasa-says-climate-change-is-real/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-1061344775

 

It's a post that AGWalarmist after AGWalarmist on LF has run from.

 

How about you?

 

And then we can talk about what's causing the temperatures to go up.

 

I'd like to discuss the meaning of this chart:

 

Global_Temp_and_CO2_400.jpg

 

Because it doesn't mean what I'm sure you think.   B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...