Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:48 pm

heisan wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:32 pm
Skymaster wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:08 pm
The key here is "Asking questions".
Something which is verboden, not allowed by the alarmist brigade who will go to any lengths to stifle any questions or debate.
Horse manure. You yourself posted (or commented on) a recent thread on Avcom about a potential error in the climate models. That error was not ridiculed or stifled. It was actively debated, and corrections were brought into the accepted model to allow for these variations. Every scientist knows and understands that their work cannot be perfect - and will always be willing to look at new information.
Not only that but absolutely refusing to make their computer models and data available for scrutiny.
Whoopee, so one guy a few years ago lost some data. The current IPCC models are fully published. The entire model, every single model parameter, every scrap of data is available to anybody who wants it.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Well done... You quoted his words exactly (instead of the usual misquotes). Of course, you failed to mention that this quote was from his discussion on the plot of a fictional book he would like to write...
=D> #-o
User avatar
viki
Stressed Eric ain't got nothing on me
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:00 pm

sampie wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:26 pm
Richard Keen ? :lol: Around we go...again, just another scientist paid to propagate lies:
Funny how they always seem to come in 1s.

And the ways they deceive never ceases to amaze #-o

"Why isn’t Keen’s work published in the scientific literature? Because the literature is reserved for science, not sophomoric frauds"

"His global warming quiz is quite informative.”

Which raises some interesting, amazing, and (in)convenient questions. Specifically, why would two scientists Picking Some Cherries out themselves as corrupt or incompetent?

You would think it is the sort of thing that they would want to keep quiet. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

Why do I say that? Let’s have a look at Keen’s Quiz

We start with some blatant cherry picking of historical data with a collection of historical examples of warm periods and extreme weather events. This is followed by quoting

Thomas Jefferson “A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep.

His conclusions are that “There’s nothing new about climate change and “global warming”, “Destructive climate events are not new, either!” Apparently implying that climate rationalists have ever said otherwise, which they have not. This is a Straw Man fallacy used to try and create the impression that he is somehow revealing something that climate science ignores.

Put simply, it is a lie. Climate scientists are well aware of historical climate changes … in many cases they are the ones who discovered them, and they have most certainly factored them into the science.

Let’s be clear here, we are not talking about complicated or arcane matters of climate science. Why cherry picking and misrepresenting data is bad science is 2nd year undergrad at most. Practice this kind of nonsense in your Jr year and watch yourself get tossed out of the program. When done by someone who is naive it is bad science. It is fraud when practiced by professionals who allegedly know better.

Pushing on, he then repeats the bogus “The Earth is Cooling” meme, and actually goes so far as to reproduce the obviously fraudulent “Monthly Temperature Projections” that Gunter used. It’s bad enough when a hack journalist feigning competence about climate issues peddles this farce, but that someone in the sciences would be presenting it as legitimate is completely inexcusable.

Apparently not finished with destroying any credibility he may have ever had as an academic, Keen goes on to make the absurd claim that the name of the phenomena “global warming” has been changed to “climate change” to disguise this supposedly inexplicable recent cooling.

Hello! Reality calling Richard Keen! You just cited the 20 yr old Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! not the “Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming“. It is called the IPCC because real scientists have been calling the phenomena “climate change” for decades.

Having discredited himself beyond all question Keen then ventures into misrepresenting the facts to make political points. He attempts to credit the virulently anti-science Bush administration with having achieved CO2 reductions that are in fact a consequence of disastrous economic policies.

This is followed by an equally flawed and misleading analysis of Kyoto, and then falsely crediting Bush with causing normal fluctuations in sea level.

Why isn’t Keen’s work published in the scientific literature? Because the literature is reserved for science, not sophomoric frauds. Is Keen so grossly incompetent that he does not recognize this for total nonsense? or so corrupt that he presents it even though he realizes that it is lying crap? Certainly any 3rd or 4th yr undergraduate in any branch of science should have had no trouble exposing this pathetic sham for what it is.

Equally, since Pielke tacitly endorses Keen, we must ask the same questions of him. Frankly, if Pielke has even a shred of integrity as a scientist he will not merely withdraw his implied endorsement of Keen, but will in fact denounce this fraud.

Regardless, they are certainly not doing the skeptic cause any favours, but then Deniers1 never do. Every time the skeptics present or accept utter idiocy as credible they discredit themselves in the process , and thereby diminish any hope of ever being taken seriously.

Certainly any respect I may have had for Pielke has evapourated as a result of this.
=D> =D> #-o
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:55 pm

Everyone is cherry-picking and what these guys do it point out flaws in the methods used - they're citing from the proponents of Warming ?
What I take from this that there is reasonable doubt whether Warming or Cooling actually is happening on a large enough scale or it just another cycle.
Parties for and against have their own vested interests at stake, and the more hysterical they get ;) the more they have to lose.

This is like religion, No actual or Not enough proof to prove either case... period.
;)
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:20 pm

No everyone is not cherry picking, the science explains itself it's not "cherry picked" a result cannot cherry pick itself, the cherry pickers have been sited here multiple times and exposed for everyone to see right in front of their eyes.

The proof of Human Induced Climate Change is everywhere, but those arrogant and without care does not care.

There is insurmountable proof for Human induced climate change globally.
Science is not a religion, the two cannot not be compared whatsoever, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, repeated, tested and shared Globally.

It is not some wannabe solo expert claiming things to be true just because he has an opinion.

I believe what i see from people dedicating their lives to find the truth not people making hollow claims having been caught out to lie and deceive repeatedly without shame because of selfish interests.
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:34 pm

:lol:
It's going to take a long time... but eventually it will sink in :twisted:

Warming History
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:31 am

vanjast wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:34 pm
It's going to take a long time... but eventually it will sink in :twisted:
Yup these two got sunk quite quickly.It just keeps getting better :lol:
This clown is a proffesor alright...a business professor :lol:

mmm...Guess who he is siding with regardless of the truth ? :lol: :wink:

Then even more hilarious: Quoting John Coleman a self proclaimed scientist describing himself as a scientist or even a meteorologist but he is neither. His degree is in media studies :lol:

Coleman "claimed that average global temperatures had risen by 'maybe a tenth of a degree' over the last century; strange then that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reported in 2007 that temperatures actually increased by an average of 0.74°C over the same period."

Coleman claims that he has 30,000 backers in the form of those who signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition on global warming, but the National Academy of Sciences called that petition "misleading" and "not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Coleman claims the dubious distinction of writing the first error in the book Climatism! by Steve Goreham. On the front cover it notes foreword by John Coleman Meteorologist, although , as noted above John Coleman is not a meteorologist. :lol: #-o !
Last edited by zander on Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:52 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:40 am

One big farce #-o
They went so bold as to Lie about Climate Change to their very own Investors in their face #-o :lol:

vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:03 am

Its the end of the road for GW... Like fashion.. it's so yesterday, and a BIG lie :wink:



User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:18 pm

Its the end of the road for GW... Like fashion.. it's so yesterday, and a BIG lie :wink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: =D> This must be the cherry on top of the cream.... =D> :lol:

Quoting a convict as a source.... :lol: :lol: :lol: #-o

Jail Sentence Conviction for Defrauding Taxpayers on EPA Contract

On April 26, 1991, Jay Lehr was charged for falsifying employee time sheets used to bill the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during his time as president of the National Water Well Association (NWWA), which was contracted by EPA. Lehr served three months of a six month sentence in a West Virginia prison and NWWA was fined over $200,000, leading to Lehr's resignation as president of NWWA.

Now for the Truth:

Al Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT). The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium.

The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film.

One claim was in error, as was one attribution of a graph. The error was in the claim that climate change had caused the shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro, although the evidence that the shrinkage was most likely caused by deforestation did not appear until after the film was made. The error of attribution was in reference to a graph of temperature and attributes it mistakenly to a Dr. Thompson, when it was actually a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and CRU surface temperature data.
The Legal Case

The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.

The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.

Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:

17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down.

I don't know whats more funnier, bringing up the eons old dead horse "swindle" balony or quoting a fraudulent convict :lol: :lol: :lol: =D> #-o

Swindle debunked too many times because of...you guessed it, lazy deniers not having a clue about the facts, which flavour you want ? here's one :wink:


the great global warming swindle drivel, a TV documentary that assume that it invalidates the science. Misinformation organisations make documentaries to confuse eg "Great global warming swindle", and "climate hustle" which misrepresent science for the gullible. As has been shown above by Tom and MA Rogers, the sources you have been trusting are not reliable and in fact are doctoring the truth. And you and many others have fallen for it. It is extremely hard to have a discussion when misinformation is uncritically accepted and hard-core, peer-reviewed, widely accepted science papers are treated as unreliable. As Rob says, it implies a strong bias against science. You must have searched some very dubious sources to find these and yet trust them rather than the IPCC expert review of published science.

When shown that your evidence is invalid, do you change your mind or go frantically searching for confirmation of your bias from yet more dubious sources?

Is there actually any point in us discussing data with you? In your own mind, what data would cause you to change your position?

Also, just make sure that you do understand the extent of agriculture in Greenland. :wink:
Last edited by zander on Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HJK 414
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5124
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 161 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by HJK 414 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:34 pm

zander wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:18 pm

…………..
Now for the Truth:

Al Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT). The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium.
..............

Zander

I am glad you have found the "truth" ……. =D>
Al Gore - that reliable source of yours predicted that most of Florida would be under water by now ……caused by global warming ……
Recently he has declared that 70% of Florida is in drought - also caused by global warming ……

Truth ?? - The only truth is that he / and many others have made enough money off the film to keep the candles burning is his mansion - and many others like his - for some time to come.

I just spent some time in the USA (arrived this morning) and know one thing for certain / and will tell you an absolute truth !! - the average - working American is so far removed from your global warming spiel - they should be classified as lonely …… they do not give a to$$ - all they want is a "normal" country again - without all the BS …..


JK
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:19 pm

HJK 414 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:34 pm
…………..
Now for the Truth:

Al Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT). The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium.
..............
I am glad you have found the "truth" ……. =D>
Al Gore - that reliable source of yours predicted that most of Florida would be under water by now ……caused by global warming ……
Recently he has declared that 70% of Florida is in drought - also caused by global warming ……
I know the truth it is quoted for everyone to see, =D> :wink:

I did in no instance say that Gore have not made mistakes, he is not a scientist he is a politician !

And No i did not quote Gore as a "reliable" source sorry you are mistaken. Your Denier friend quote a convict that quoted Gore as if he can be used for some kind of evidence to debunk climate change :lol:

Trying to make a debate out of Gore for or against the truth about Climate Science is non relevant, he is not a climate scientist.

I quoted the truth.
You can gladly go read it up yourself here you go...enjoy :wink:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/10/t ... _truth.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -untruths/
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/enviro ... truth.html
http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Goreacknowledgederrors.htm
Truth ?? - The only truth is that he / and many others have made enough money off the film to keep the candles burning is his mansion - and many others like his - for some time to come.
Like i said, i believe the science, Gore merely quotes and use his own interpretations, i would not use him as a credible scientific source.

On the other hand every Oil funded politician kept their candles burning for what the past 200 years ! Destroying the earth and dedicating their lives to false campaigns pretending to be plain dumb and Stupid as to the Truth about climate change directly and decisively linked to them !
I just spent some time in the USA (arrived this morning) and know one thing for certain / and will tell you an absolute truth !! - the average - working American is so far removed from your global warming spiel - they should be classified as lonely …… they do not give a to$$ - all they want is a "normal" country again - without all the BS …..
There is no "spiel" only Lies and the Truth, throughout this whole thread the Liars have been exposed. One only has to look at 1 denier to realize how they intentionally Deceive and Lie and make Contradicting statements to deceive the public to know they are a bunch of greedy crooks and exist only to forfill their selfish greedy intentions.

Then again, none of this have to be even considered to be looked at when it requires only to gaze upon 1 fossil fuel plant, to realize the devastation millions of factories are causing to our fragile planet, there is no need to even look at the Evidence that is there !
User avatar
MadMacs
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2315
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed
Has liked: 158 times
Been liked: 29 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by MadMacs » Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:55 pm

Wow, what a pathetic attempt to discredit the Great Climate Swindle. Bring in some dodgy Oz scientist who I've never even heard of with some obscure info does not change the fact that the movie is generally correct and spot on. As for the one scientist who claims he was taken out of context, was probably threatened to change his statement or else lose his job like so many other doubters have. As for using a government agency to disprove some data is like asking a wolf to look after the sheep. Once again we see that when the truth is shown, the alarmists try and denigrate the story.
The closest I get to flying these days is when I put my cellphone in 'flight mode'.
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:21 pm

MadMacs wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:55 pm
Wow, what a pathetic attempt to discredit the Great Climate Swindle. Bring in some dodgy Oz scientist who I've never even heard of with some obscure info does not change the fact that the movie is generally correct and spot on.
No, Just because you say so doesn't make it so, so many Lies have been corrected since the release of this video :wink:

The great Global Warming Swindle
Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and DVD releases of the programme.

Other scientific arguments used in the film have been described as refuted or misleading by scientists working in the relevant fields. Critics have also argued that the programme is one-sided and that the mainstream position on global warming, as supported by the scientific academies of the major industrialised nations and other scientific organisations, is incorrectly represented.
As for using a government agency to disprove some data is like asking a wolf to look after the sheep.
MadMacs wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:55 pm
Bring in some dodgy Oz scientist who I've never even heard
Really ??? :lol: Glad you asked, here's some more Credible sources, Now, debunk them for me individually please :wink:


Brook, E. J. (2013), Leads and Lags at the End of the Last Ice Age, Science, 339(6123), 1042–1043, doi:10.1126/science.1234239.
Caillon, N., J. P. Severinghaus, J. Jouzel, J.-M. Barnola, J. Kang, and V. Y. Lipenkov (2003), Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III, Science, 299(5613), 1728–1731, doi:10.1126/science.1078758.
Guggenheim, D. (2006), An Inconvenient Truth, Documentary.
Parrenin, F., V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Köhler, D. Raynaud, D. Paillard, J. Schwander, C. Barbante, A. Landais, A. Wegner, and J. Jouzel (2013), Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science, 339(6123), 1060–1063, doi:10.1126/science.1226368.
Pedro, J. B., S. O. Rasmussen, and T. D. van Ommen (2012), Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation, Clim. Past, 8(4), 1213–1221, doi:10.5194/cp-8-1213-2012.
Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2004), Warming the world, Nature, 432(7018), 677–677, doi:10.1038/432677a.
Shakun, J. D., P. U. Clark, F. He, S. A. Marcott, A. C. Mix, Z. Liu, B. Otto-Bliesner, A. Schmittner, and E. Bard (2012), Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation, Nature, 484(7392), 49–54, doi:10.1038/nature10915.

Then lets warm up a little by starting with this: (Then depending on how you respond, the real fun will begin) O.. i love this thread :lol:

Skepticism Vs. Denial

Climate “skeptics”, and much of the media, have conveniently ignored the rules governing skepticism. Like science, true skepticism is rigidly anchored to a foundation of “critical thinking” principles.

These "skeptics" are not the first to exploit skepticism and flout its principles. The tobacco and asbestos lobbies are two other blatant examples but there are many more that have hijacked the term “skeptic” and use it as a facade to hide behind. Climate "Skeptics" have been assisted either by a culpable media or the media’s pursuit of “balance“ before accurate and adequate reporting of the science.

Brief Overview

Public awareness and the so-called “debate” on human-induced climate change now spans more than three decades, with the informed scientific debate running much longer. Scientists and researchers from multiple disciplines have now reached a facts-based consensus, but the public and political discourse goes relentlessly on.

What became patently clear from the outset was this would not be a public debate about climate science, but an ideological and vested interests debate. Climate science was challenging the global energy generation status quo and the monolithic power of the fossil fuel industry that has ruled the world for 150 years but is now revealing its global climate disruption powers.

This could only become a titanic struggle and the climate denialists and misinformers, knowingly or otherwise, are the frontline troops for the fossil fuel industry. The “carbon war” makes the war against tobacco smoking pale by comparison.

The media debate really warmed up in 1990, when BBC TV produced the two-hour documentary After the Warming, which presented the then known evidence on global warming and human’s causal link. An immediate response came from its commercial competitor, TV Channel 4, who aired The Greenhouse Conspiracy.

The film An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006, and its maker Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, which received the usual ridicule from the fake skeptics and predictable sections of the media industry.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, also made by Channel 4, was broadcast at the same time as the release of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. This thoroughly debunked the sun is the cause film featured many of the same “skeptical scientists” who appeared in The Greenhouse Conspiracy. All the compelling scientific evidence gathered over the intervening 17 years hadn’t shifted the rusted-on skeptics from their “nothing will convince me” stance.

There have been trillions of words wrtten and spoken about this heated and critical subject so you can fill in the rest with your own recollections.

Denial and Tactics

The fake skeptics deploy many tactics; one example being that whenever major climate conferences are held, or peer-reviewed scientific papers and climate data released, this coincides with copious amounts of contradicting opinion designed to perpetuate doubt and stifle action. They even hold their own conferences, like those by the right-wing libertarian American Heartland Institute.

Another tactic is to attack climate scientists directly. There is the old perennial favourite that they are the high priests of a religious cult called “environmentalism”. But the most malicious and concerted attack conveniently happened just before the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2008. Climate scientist’s private emails were illegally hacked and their contents distorted and misquoted. Another batch from the same hacked emails emerged just before the recent Durban Climate Conference.

Fake skeptics and the media dubbed this Climategate and “The Greatest Scandal in Modern Science”, but eight independent investigations eventually put sanity back where it belonged.

The media hounded the so-called “Climategate conspirators” but virtually fell silent when the scientists were exonerated. But fake skeptic and sections of the media still persist with their conspiracy theories. The media would better spend its time investigating “Hackergate”; there’s where the web of deception lies.

Then there’s the tactic of imbedding contrary perception in the public mind. We never stop hearing that the climate scientists are in it for the research grant money, when it’s actually the fossil fuel industry that's in it for payday big-time; to the tune of trillions of dollars. And then there is the subject of this article; they claim that the media is not giving the vastly outnumbered (97% consensus) contrarian “scientists” a fair hearing and demand balanced coverage, when the fact is we never stop hearing from them through organs of the media.

In a way, the few who still genuinely reject the fundamental science behind global warming are only pawns in this global power play.
Marketing Doubt

Doubt is the prime tactic used by the climate denial PR machine, but exaggeration and extreme rhetoric is employed too, as exposed in the book Merchants of Doubt. The immense power and reach of the mass media has been the vehicle used to plant the seeds of doubt and make them flourish.

The media’s role is detailed in the book The Inquisition of Climate Science written by James Powell, who was an adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior. Quote from the book:

“Right-wing media like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News are guilty, but so are the Washington Post and the New York Times. The two decades long success of the industry of denial could not have happened without the complicity of the media”

It was written from an American perspective, but it applies equally to the mass media globally; such as Britain’s Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail and Australia’s Sun Herald and The Australian, as well as large sections of the TV and radio mass media.

It’s the “irresponsible” media where the problem lies. You don’t have to dig very deep to expose the connections between economic and political self-serving climate denialism and substantive sections of the mass media. Front groups are used as the linkage, but it’s not the intention here to delve into these connections, but to show the consequences of their complicity. Books already referenced and other sources comprehensively investigate the connections.
Manufacturing Confusion

The populist media thrives on controversy and conspiracy theories, so the denialists and misinformers are ploughing fertile ground. Tabloid newspapers and radio shock jocks, and even the general media, go forth and spread the denialist’s misinformation - scientific facts are irrelevant to them.

Media hacks or opportunists like Rush Limaugh, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole, Alan Jones, and Andrew Bolt, to name some, are more than eager to spread the myths and deception being peddled by the likes of Christopher Monckton, Nigel Lawson, Fred Singer, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter - and others. The “responsible” media must strenuously exercise its public responsibility and bring these myth spreaders under the piercing interrogation light now radiating from a blazing mountain of peer-reviewed literature and physical evidence.

Many prominent climate “skeptics” are serial denialists - from cigarettes to asbestos, and more. The responsible media should bring these denierholics to account - Libertarian "Think Tanks" are full of them.

The Ice Goeth

Fake skeptics manufacture myths at will, but these myths soon fall apart when the scientific blowtorch is applied. But the transparency of these myopic myths shows the depth of desperation to deceive and delay.

One of the things they are desperate to pretend is a mirage is what’s happening to the planet’s ice and, in particular, what’s happening in the Arctic. Just consider the following as a typical example of how blinded they are to reality:

The Arctic sea ice continues to melt at an alarming rate and the obvious trend is beyond any doubt. It plunged to a record summer low in 2007 of 4.13 million sq. kilometres. The whole of the last decade was below the average 1972-2008 trend line, with the last three years, 2008, 2009 and 2010 being almost as low as 2007. Last year (2011) set a new minimum ice area record.

But even more alarming is the record plunge in the sea ice’s volume, from 16.8 thousand cubic kilometers 32 years ago to 4.3 thousand cubic kilometers last Arctic summer. 2010 had by far the steepest decline in ice volume, and 2011 was even lower. Climate models had predicted this level of ice loss would not be reached till around 2040, so scientists are working hard to explain the 30 year difference.

But US media celebrity "weather" forecaster and Fox News contributor, Joe Bastardi, looked into his crystal ball in late 2010 and stated:

“My forecast for next year (2011) is for sea ice to melt only to levels we saw back in 2005, or 06 (5.5 million sq. kilometers)...The ice is coming back”.

Christopher Monckton is on the public record as saying:

“So we’re not looking at a long-term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic”

Despite the bleeding obvious, he has only recently been forced to modify this myth - not by the media but by a private citizen.
Exploiting Fatal Flaws

Over the past three decades, what has changed are the projections from the peer-reviewed science and each new IPCC report that has progressively worsened as the data and evidence has worsened. But the denialists and misinformers, and their media allies, exploit flaws in human behaviour.

Their myths capitalise on the human weaknesses of complacency and desensitization to non-immediate threats because humans have a short attention span. The public readily forget the sheer magnitude of the consequences of even a few degrees rise in global temperatures.
Debate Ends - Reality Starts

Climate denialist mythology has no basis in fact, but it is used to continually smear the science and the scientists. Fake skeptics are prepared to say anything to defend their untenable position when compared to what the science shows are the facts behind the changing global climate.

For three decades, aided and abetted by the mass media, political and economic interests and ideologies have overridden the established science. But what’s becoming ever-more certain is; in a further three decades time we will not be debating climate change – we will be in the middle of it.
Last edited by zander on Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:30 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
zander
Take off Clearance
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: Honeydew
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:22 pm

MadMacs wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:55 pm
As for the one scientist who claims he was taken out of context, was probably threatened to change his statement or else lose his job like so many other doubters have.
Really...??
You mean like this !

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 36cfe9a195
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by dany » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:21 am

:lol: One just have to speak to the guys working on the icebreaker vessels to hear the true state of affairs( immediate family work on some of them). On many routes, icebreakers work now twice as hard to keep the routes open then 10 years ago,and in some they work not so hard. Climate will change as long as all is in existence.

One other issue I learned about, never invite a Global warming believer on a icebreaker. Its a vessel that carries the plague to them.

Return to “123.45”