The lies that climate change denialists tell

You never responded to my statement about government funding. Do you see it as pure as the driven snow and certainly not suspect in the least?

Well, can you show evidence of where the government has falsified information? How can a person be suspicious of something without solid evidence to prompt such a response? Matt is dealing with factual evidence, what he has presented is proof. Whilst remaining healthily sceptical about the motives of an organisation, a person cannot have any real suspicions about said organisation's motivations until they are presented with some hard evidence of wrong doing. So again, do you have any such evidence?

The corruption you allege is inherent in corporate sponsorship of research could never, ever occur within government dependent research efforts.

Again, can you show us some examples of where this has happened? Otherwise we are looking at pure speculation. I'm not suggesting it couldn't happen, I'm questioning the sense in even arguing such a proposition without proof. I am asking why it is even relevant to discuss this without proof to support the suggestion?

Matt could have posted an article about the harm done by large corporations in the developing world. I could respond by stating that I am deeply suspicious of the Red Cross, who MIGHT be falsifying the records of their good deeds that they do in the developing world. I am pointing this out because it IS possible that charities can be corrupt. But if I don't present any proof of their corruption or anything to support my suspicions then those feelings are totally groundless and it would be rather pointless in discussing them - because all we would be left with is rhetoric and feeling. It isn't a game of goodies and baddies. There is truth and there is falsity.

In the instance of climate change deniers, it can be shown that much of their data is misleading, incorrect, unsubstantiated, biased, un-academic or simply false. If those on the opposite side of the fence have produced falsified information does it automatically make their claims true? No. Of course it doesn't.

The paper purporting to find fault with the "900 papers" is an arm of the IPCC.

You can't simply dismiss it by saying 'it's from the IPCC', show where this paper has made a mistake. Show where it is falsifying evidence. The paper Matt has linked to (irrespective of where it has come from) provides all the links and data to check for yourself what the 900 papers have claimed. You can't dismiss one paper until you can show where it is wrong - which is exactly what the other has done. He hasn't simply said 'Pff, these are papers from Climate Change deniers - why bother?!' He's gone through them all. You need to check out where this paper is wrong - as he has done - before you can throw it out.

In the real world - and your scientists live in the real world - no one and no process is immune to corruption.

Matt has demonstrated that scientists on one side of the fence are lying. He has presented evidence for this. Where is the evidence that those on the other side (lets not forget that it is a staggering 97% of scientists who are on the other side of that fence - I have yet to see a refutation of this figure) are also lying, falsifying data or producing shoddy, misleading work? Or even in comparable figures come to that?

That, I would suggest, is what you need to provide before this exchange can move on. Otherwise it is just an argument about who might do what on one side, and who did do what on the other. And frankly, that would suck.

dblboggie wrote:You never responded to my statement about government funding. Do you see it as pure as the driven snow and certainly not suspect in the least?

I did respond that it demonstrates that you do not understand how the academic research system works. Clearly you do not if you think that Exxon-Mobil have acted honourably.

dblboggie wrote:The corruption you allege is inherent in corporate sponsorship of research

I never said that, nor am I implying it. I am singling out Exxon-Mobil and others in the energy industry for spreading misinformation about climate science.

dblboggie wrote:could never, ever occur within government dependent research efforts.

If you had proof that any government was interfering in the research process and undermining the scientific method you might have a point. As it is you keep alluding to this but never delivering. The fact that you believe there is collusion and conspiracy does not prove collusion and conspiracy.

dblboggie wrote:The paper purporting to find fault with the "900 papers" is an arm of the IPCC.

So what? You have proven nothing and your paranoia about the IPCC proves only your paranoia. The IPCC are advised by scientists, active researchers, the 97%.

Yet your crowd are the same people who denied that tobacco smoke, acid rain, cfcs and a whole host of other dangers were damaging to us and the planet.

dblboggie wrote:In the real world - and your scientists live in the real world - no one and no process is immune to corruption.

So, when are you going to deliver proof of this corruption in the scientific process of climate research? Always jam tomorrow... never jam today.

Just the fact that the IPCC shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore in 2007 should be enough to discredit this organization.

But, let's charitably leave that aside.

Here...



and here (excuse the needlessly over-dramatic presentation, it does not detract from Sprigg's points)...



I would like to note that the second video is of someone who is not a so-called "climate-change denier" (such a cute term, that).

The point is, there is every reason to question the work product of the IPCC, and I am not the only one that believes this. The IPCC is a political body, pure and simple.

dblboggie wrote:Just the fact that the IPCC shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore in 2007 should be enough to discredit this organization.

Why? The great UN anti-American conspiracy? You've yet to prove btw why the WHO report that places the UKs healthcare 20 places above yours is a UN conspiracy.

dblboggie wrote:Here...

Ok... Singer, who appears at the beginning of the first video is a tobacco industry and oil industry lacky. He is one of those aforementioned passive smoke denialists. His organisation SEPP is also taking money from Exxon-Mobil to fund his research. Patrick Michaels, the second guy, is also receiving oil money to fund his research. Calder is a journalist who was involved in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. You remember that don't you? You know, the "documentary" that was judged by the broadcast watchdog to be misleading and C4 were ordered to broadcast an apology? Piers Corbyn is a weatherman. Comparing short term weather trends with long term climate variation is like comparing chalk and cheese. Number 16 in this thread in case you missed it.

So we have tobacco industry and oil lackys, journalists involved in fraudulent documentaries... and a weatherman. Yeah and you still accuse climate research scientists of conspiracy.

Ok so whomever said that the IPCC was peer reviewed in the first place? I didn't. The science they present is peer reviewed by the journals they are appearing in, why would they need to peer review a second time when the work they are presenting has already been peer reviewed by the community presenting it to them? Can your passive smoke denier explain that?

Once again, this demonstrates only your ignorance of the scientific method.

As for your second video, Climategate is answered at the top of page 2. If you had no intention reading any of my posts in this thread and answering the science, why did you bother contributing? And you still haven't answered my question about Exxon-Mobil's conduct.

Ah.... I see. So we through eggs at the dissenting voices (big oil, big tobacco, just a weather man) but you've got nothing to say about the guy in the second video. What about his concerns about the IPCC?

You sluff this off with a "Climate Gate is answered" but don't address any of the other concerns he has with the IPCC amongst other things.

And Climate Gate was "answered" by an incestuous "examination" into these emails by the very organizations that the principal players work for.

"Yep! We looked into it, our guy is just fine!"

What kind of crap is that? How is that "addressed" in even the remotest sense?

dblboggie wrote:Ah.... I see. So we through eggs at the dissenting voices (big oil, big tobacco, just a weather man)

Well no, their funding sources are not in question. The first guy is happy to admit it in both cases.

dblboggie wrote: but you've got nothing to say about the guy in the second video. What about his concerns about the IPCC?

Explain to me again why I owe you anything considering you have gone out of your way to avoid answering any of this issues raised in this thread and have conducted yourself entirely in a manner that suggests you are just out to pick a fight? Precisely what do you think this video proves?

dblboggie wrote: You sluff this off with a "Climate Gate is answered" but don't address any of the other concerns he has with the IPCC amongst other things.

And Climate Gate was "answered" by an incestuous "examination" into these emails by the very organizations that the principal players work for.

"Yep! We looked into it, our guy is just fine!"

What kind of crap is that? How is that "addressed" in even the remotest sense?

Let's not mention that the very act of hacking the CRU database was illegal...

Five separate independent enquries cleared them of wrongdoing:
* Penn State University Feb 2010
* House of Commons Science and Tech Committee March 2010
* The University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel in conjunction with the Royal Society. April 2010
* The US EPA cleared them in July 2010
* The Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce cleared them in Feb 2011. This one should be settling for you. After all, what's good for business is good for the people right?

That's some pretty serious allegations you have made (they may even qualify as libellous); do you have any evidence or is this just another baseless conspiracy theory on your part?

And still, he has not addressed the issue of Exxon-Mobil's conduct. I refuse to entertain any more of your conspiracy theories until you start providing some evidence and answer my points.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Ah.... I see. So we through eggs at the dissenting voices (big oil, big tobacco, just a weather man)

Well no, their funding sources are not in question. The first guy is happy to admit it in both cases.

But the funding sources of AGW proponents are beyond reproach? Sorry... but funding by government or funding by "big oil" are the very same thing as far as I'm concerned. Each have their own interests as history has abundantly proven.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: but you've got nothing to say about the guy in the second video. What about his concerns about the IPCC?

Explain to me again why I owe you anything considering you have gone out of your way to avoid answering any of this issues raised in this thread and have conducted yourself entirely in a manner that suggests you are just out to pick a fight? Precisely what do you think this video proves?

It proves that there is doubt. Doubt about current AGW orthodoxy and doubt about the IPCC's integrity. And that, my friend, is enough for me to not jump on the AGW bandwagon with all the others.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote: You sluff this off with a "Climate Gate is answered" but don't address any of the other concerns he has with the IPCC amongst other things.

And Climate Gate was "answered" by an incestuous "examination" into these emails by the very organizations that the principal players work for.

"Yep! We looked into it, our guy is just fine!"

What kind of crap is that? How is that "addressed" in even the remotest sense?

Let's not mention that the very act of hacking the CRU database was illegal...

Sure, but the US Army Private that illegally released countless thousands of top-secret classified documents to WikiLeaks is a worldwide hero of the left. Nothing wrong about that, eh?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Five separate independent enquries cleared them of wrongdoing:
* Penn State University Feb 2010
* House of Commons Science and Tech Committee March 2010
* The University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel in conjunction with the Royal Society. April 2010
* The US EPA cleared them in July 2010
* The Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce cleared them in Feb 2011. This one should be settling for you. After all, what's good for business is good for the people right?

As I said, these are ALL, without exception, incestuous inquires. One of the principles worked for Penn State (which benefited from government funding for his work); others worked for East Anglia (which also benefited from government funding for their work); the US EPA is even now unconstitutionally enforcing, by administrative mandate, things which our elected Congress had forbidden - so sure, they're going to find something squirrely about ClimateGate (NOT); and honestly, you are going to consider the US Department of Commerce (when we have a trade deficit that just boggles the mind) as an open and honest arbiter in this case??? You clearly are not up on American politics.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:That's some pretty serious allegations you have made (they may even qualify as libellous); do you have any evidence or is this just another baseless conspiracy theory on your part?

Really??? Libelous??? You're kidding right? We are talking about some of the most corrupt entities on earth! Governments have a very long and storied tradition of corruption. Anyone who has read even a single history book would know this.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:And still, he has not addressed the issue of Exxon-Mobil's conduct. I refuse to entertain any more of your conspiracy theories until you start providing some evidence and answer my points.

I am quite fine with Exxon-Mobile's conduct. They are acting as any entity under an all-out assault would act. And you are assuming, in your condemnation of their conduct, that they even believe that AGW is, in fact, so-called "settled science." There are many who do not buy into this theory - and remember, this is ONLY a theory now - so why should Exxon-Mobile not defend themselves.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Ah.... I see. So we through eggs at the dissenting voices (big oil, big tobacco, just a weather man)

Well no, their funding sources are not in question. The first guy is happy to admit it in both cases.

But the funding sources of AGW proponents are beyond reproach? Sorry... but funding by government or funding by "big oil" are the very same thing as far as I'm concerned. Each have their own interests as history has abundantly proven.

For the millionth time I am talking about research funding through the university system. You have NO EVIDENCE that the scientific method is corrupt. All you have is a paranoid feeling based on your ignorance of the scientific method and your prejudices based on the fact that you do not like the conclusion of 97% of active climate researchers. Silencing the scientists with rabid screams of "CONSPIRACY!!!!" will not change anything. Waving your constitution at the scientific community will not change anything.

Exxon-Mobil are bypassing this academic system. That you condone this action speaks volumes about you: you do not care about what the science shows, you just want the world to fit your view of things. Well guess what? The climate reacts to how we interfere in it. Quoting constitutions and citing laws is not going to change anything. It is not self-aware or prone to guilt trips or threats of fines or imprisonment.

dblboggie wrote:It proves that there is doubt. Doubt about current AGW orthodoxy and doubt about the IPCC's integrity. And that, my friend, is enough for me to not jump on the AGW bandwagon with all the others.

Your suspicions of the IPCC based on a lecture by a single individual proves nothing about the integrity of the science. Science that you are proud to admit you do not understand and have not even attempted to address in this thread. You have nothing but your baseless suspicions.

dblboggie wrote:Sure, but the US Army Private that illegally released countless thousands of top-secret classified documents to WikiLeaks is a worldwide hero of the left. Nothing wrong about that, eh?

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

dblboggie wrote:As I said, these are ALL, without exception, incestuous inquires.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Clearly you did not look at their conclusions. Clearly, you would rather accept Fox News' interpretation of those e-mails. That's fine for you, but those of us who understand the scientific method require something a little more concrete than the paranoid rants of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

dblboggie wrote:One of the principles worked for Penn State (which benefited from government funding for his work);

What, 2% of budget?

Well gee, you think the university might be concerned about faux science going on in their establishment wouldn't you? It would be in their interest to highlight such wrong doing so funds to the department could be better spent elsewhere. After all, false science being promoted by a member of their faculty would damage their reputation no end.

Oh and by the way, it is your side that always finds it has money to burn. ]Thanks to who? You would think with the skyrocketing profit they made they might be actually spending some of it on R&D into alternate fuel sources.

dblboggie wrote:others worked for East Anglia (which also benefited from government funding for their work);

Same again.

dblboggie wrote:the US EPA is even now unconstitutionally enforcing, by administrative mandate, things which our elected Congress had forbidden - so sure, they're going to find something squirrely about ClimateGate (NOT);

I fail to see what that has to do with anything? Are you one of those Republicans who think that the laws of physics can be trumped by the US Constitution? What do you think waving your Constitution at the sky is going to achieve? Will it make all that magic self-evaporating water disappear do you think?

dblboggie wrote:and honestly, you are going to consider the US Department of Commerce (when we have a trade deficit that just boggles the mind) as an open and honest arbiter in this case??? You clearly are not up on American politics.

And you are clearly not up on how real universities work and how research is funded and how the scientific method works.

dblboggie wrote:Really??? Libelous??? You're kidding right? We are talking about some of the most corrupt entities on earth! Governments have a very long and storied tradition of corruption. Anyone who has read even a single history book would know this.

We are talking about climate researchers. You have accused 97% of their number of being involved in a conspiracy and you have cited not one shred of evidence in the 2-3 years we have been discussing this. In fact, I don't think you've paid even the slightest bit of attention to anything I've ever said on this issue.

dblboggie wrote:I am quite fine with Exxon-Mobile's conduct. They are acting as any entity under an all-out assault would act. And you are assuming, in your condemnation of their conduct, that they even believe that AGW is, in fact, so-called "settled science."

You think underhand tactics to undermine the scientific method is acceptable when 97% of active researchers accept this very real threat? I am clearly wasting my time on you and you will no longer receive a response from me on this issue.

dblboggie wrote:There are many who do not buy into this theory - and remember, this is ONLY a theory now - so why should Exxon-Mobile not defend themselves.

No, not that money. 97% of active researchers are in agreement. 2% are unconvinced and 1% is outright denying. Next time you have an illness, ask 100 Doctors. Be sure not to go with the consensus, won't you?

Number 20: They're in it for the money

This excellent article pins it down. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

The funniest thing here is that government spending (2% of US budget in 2009) is nothing compared to the billions of dollars that Exxon-Mobil are splashing out to fund political pressure groups. They made $45b profit in 2009 They stand accused of employing the same people, and using the same tactics, as the tobacco lobby

It is the denialists that never find their movement short of money yet the 97% scientists demonstrating the reality of this issue are not the ones with a bottomless pit of cash such as $45b a year net profit oil company.

Number 21: Jobs will be lost, economies will collapse.

Since the dawn of civilisation, people have been put out of earning a livelihood by the emergence of new technology. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that there is always a net gain in jobs, employability and the economy with emergent technologies as investment is made. The luddite movement of the industrial revolution was founded on the principle that jobs and livelihoods will be lost. They also had some ethical issues with the treatment of employees in the factories but ultimately, they were motivated by concern for the new technologies. They, like any other group that is resistant to technological change, were wrong.

In my own lifetime there has been two digital revolutions. The first was in the 1970s-80s when IBM, Amstrad and a host of other computer manufacturers aimed to put a computer in every household. It was said by some that this reliance on machines would destroy jobs. They were wrong. In the 1990s it was said that the internet revolution would do the same thing, destroying the retail market. They were wrong. Every person or group that has resisted technological advance has made this claim. In every case, they were wrong. The anti-green movement claim to have the interests of our economies and our jobs at heart; they even seem to worship capitalism. Strange then, that they are desperately clinging to reliance on a diminishing resource instead of embracing a new future of technological advance, economic boom and more jobs? Well no, not when the anti movement is being funded by the giants that have a vested interest in ensuring our reliance on that diminishing resource.

A lengthy report from the EU shows that reducing carbon emissions is cost effective: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/18/climate-change-action-cost-effective?intcmp=239

Germany's green economy is going from strength to strength: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/greggGermany.html. In Germany, renewable energy employs 370,000 people compared to 50,000 in the coal industry: http://www.bmu.de/english/renewable_energy/downloads/doc/47242.php. Yeah, those greenies are really killing jobs aren't they!

There is a claim going around the internet that the Spanish economy collapsed due to its investment in green technology. This notion comes from an economics professor at the University of Madrid who claimed that for every green job created, 2.2 conventional jobs are lost. Juan Carlos failed to cite where those jobs were lost or identify the relevant industries.

Juan Carlos is the head of "Fundacion Juan de Mariana" a libertarian think tank and "Center for New Europe" an economic think tank. Can you guess where they get their funding?

Spoiler:

If he had looked to Navarre, he would have seen what this report has noted: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/letter-from-navarra-ministerapril-2009.pdf

In relation to his study, it is important to understand the context of his data: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/pdf/green_jobs_letter.pdf

His data is disproven by UNEP: http://www.unep.org/labour_environment/PDFs/Greenjobs/UNEP-Green-Jobs-Report.pdf

During the economic decline, green energy created more jobs than the fossil fuel industry@ http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Clean-Power-Green-Jobs-25-RES.pdf

Amazing thread Matt!!! It's like a TalkOrigins archive for climate change / global warming!

lol, thanks. All of the papers come from a mix of blogs and websites run by professionals with links to academic papers and making good use of Google Scholar.