Latest attempt to question climate change is junk

[villager]

Latest attempt to question climate change is junk

By JOEL CONNELLY

Computer hackers recently penetrated the server at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and caught academics in the Climate Research Unit in gossipy conversation about how to discredit global warming critics.

Right-wing media have extracted quotes, cried "Junk Science," jazzed up a buzzword -- "Climategate" -- with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times headlining an editorial: "Hiding evidence of global cooling."

It's a classic example of Junk Propaganda. The klutzy profs at East Anglia have become devil figures in a canny disinformation campaign, directed into an ideologues' echo chamber.

Or as Dr. James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Newsweek, "The contrarians or deniers do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate."

If you apply a critical eye or ear to FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report or the right-wing Daily Telegraph in Britain, you'll recognize a strategy defined in a famous tobacco industry memo on how to discredit the medical consensus that cigarettes cause lung cancer and emphysema:

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

<snip>

http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/412728_joel30.html

[GMA]

1. Gotta respectfully disagree here.

Completely. As more and more questions arise around dumping original data, bad code, and on and on and on, let's just take a breath and see what happens. But it does not look good.

[villager]

2. More and more questions from who? Anonymous online posters?

Fox News? George Will? :shrug:

[GMA]

4. Do I look anonymous?

Well, let me introduce myself. Hi, it's me, a mom, a grandma, former childbirth instructor (proudly part of the "lunatic fringe" who supported and prepared parents for safe home births), teacher, fitness coach at a local Curves. Really like people--generally even those who disagree with or insult me on du.

As for who's doing the asking, my gosh villager, get out there and read!

[villager]

5. Again, who is doing the questioning aside from those who were already questioning everything?

What is the email extract that, specifically, reverses the findings or implications of the accumulated data?

How does stealing the emails justify ignoring shrinking icecaps, rising seas, reduced crop yields, increased wildfires, etc.?

I share many of your "lunatic fringe" notions about home births, however. Even if it was my Ex who was the midwife. I won't hold her against the rest of that honorable profession! ;-)

[kestrel91316]

11. Which company's payroll are you on? You know, the companies hired by

the RW to spend all day posting RW crap on the internet? You and your sockpuppet friends all sound like you are working off the same script.

[certainot]

20. well, you're looking a lot like limbaugh if you

figure this as as some evidence that climate deterioration is a hoax, or even could be a hoax.

the stakes are too high to allow dumbass shit like this to obstruct the quick action that we owe our children and the planet, that will stimulate the economy.

and consider this: no one can name anything important that limbaugh has been right about except that some liberals are corrupt and/or stupid.

[Chemisse]

3. How do we even know these 'emails' are not completely doctored?

Are the hackers coming out to certify where they were obtained? There is a lack of basic chain of evidence here, and for good reason.

[kestrel91316]

9. Sorry, Sen. Inhofe. YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS are wrong.

Cherry-picked, out of context bits and pieces of emails do not constitute any sort of case against the data, nor the analysis thereof, not the things we see with our very own eyes.

Take your RW talking points and GO AWAY. Reciting eldless RW talking points is a violation of DU rules.

[GMA]

27. And now--

let's kill that red-headed step-child!

Still like you guys. Gotta keep each other on our toes.

[whosinpower]

6. At issue is not the raw data

At issue is the sneaking attempt to change the narrative, to discredit scientists.
However, a person only has to look at images of the Polar Ice cap, to read about how the ice that is left there is rotten and eroding, to look at how much the glaciers in Greenland, Antartica and around the entire globe have been shrinking at alarming rates. You don't need raw data to know that something is up.

The deniers want nothing to change because, rightly or wrongly they are making the claim that climate change is not man's fault, that there is nothing we can do about it anyways, so we might as well live the high life and leave the mess to future generations. That is what this is all about - do we try to change our way of life to preserve the health of the earth for future generations, or do we not?

You don't need raw data to see the coral reefs dying, or cyanobacteria taking over whole ecosystems. You don't need raw data to see empty fishnets, or starving polar bears. It is staring us all right in the face. If these very deniers would or could make some counter arguement that would explain these symptoms other than CO2 density, then perhaps we should listen.

[villager]

7. But they can't, of course. This was also telling, from the same column:

The climate debate is curious.

In one corner, you have scientists working in the field -- the U.S. Geological Survey measuring glaciers, NASA scientists recording satellite images on how the Arctic icepack is shrinking, biologists measuring the scope of forest-killing beetle infestations, and statisticians establishing a connection between lack of rain, human displacement and armed conflict.

Critics, by contrast, never go anywhere near the actual conditions that scientists are measuring and recording.

They sit in New York TV studios, the Daily Telegraph's city room and Drudge's Florida digs, and spout falsehoods: The distortions, in turn, are eaten up by an audience that is sour, sedentary and suspicious of change.

The deniers, amazingly, are gaining traction.

Why? Part of the problem is that newspapers are contracting faster than glaciers and polar icepacks...

[GMA]

8. Sigh.

Well, I've addressed every question and comment here in other discussions over the past few days, with links and/or quotes. Go ahead and yell at the "deniers" (a strangely religious-sounding insult), and please don't look at or read anything that might support the concept that money, power, greed, pressure (peer and political) might have anything to do with this. Knock yourselves out.

[villager]

10. Well, everything the deniers come up with -- almost always from sources

previously opposing any action on climate change (and thus, on any environmental issue) -- has also been addressed in "other threads," with links, etc.

And actually, you haven't specifically addressed the comments in the article posted here.

[GMA]

12. K.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-climate-e-mails-and-the-politics-of-science


(snippet)
"For years, the left has spun the debate over global warming in the starkest Manichean terms. Those who disagree with the scientific and policy orthodoxy have been maligned as greedy capitalists bent on raping the earth of its natural resources for cheap material gain; they have been cast as the benighted enemies of reason itself. Efforts to publicly challenge the science behind global warming have too often resulted in professional and political character assassination. To be skeptical about the fashionable scientific and policy platform aggressively advocated by the mainstream media and self-indulgently championed by the Hollywood elite is nothing less than an “assault on reason,” to borrow Al Gore’s hyperbolic rhetoric. In predictably technocratic fashion, the left has claimed its own peculiar position as the only scientifically legitimate one—everything else reduces to craven interest, manifest dishonesty, or antiquarian faith."


In no particular order:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=23290

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html

http://publicintelligence.net/climatic-research-unit/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/


And just because I'm in a good mood:
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/002138.html

[villager]

13. Exactly -- a hodgepodge of rightwing sites, Murdoch papers, etc.,

...and one praised by Dennis Miller!

Whoo-wee!

All were already opposed to any action on any environmental issue -- did you read the other articles on that "New Atlantis" site of yours, or just forget to mention them?

[GMA]

16. That's the way to go!

Be just like you claim the "deniers" are and don't look at any other point of view.

Of course I'm familiar with the pro GW side! Isn't everybody?

I don't damn the info because I don't like the editor or publisher. That would be stupid and narrow-minded.

Oh, wait! You totally win!

I totally lose!

What can I say? Your simple charm won me over and completely changed my mind about GW. It was a true slap-my-forehead moment. Ahhhh, that feels better.

[villager]

18. Uh, the reason I know they're rightwing/Dennis Miller-y websites

...is because I looked....

They have an agenda. They are manipulating the stolen emails to fit that agenda.

[GMA]

21. But of course there's no agenda on the left-leaning sites,

and we're not smart enough to read it all, digest it, and make a decision that might be somewhere between the two poles. No, that could never happen. Damn those conservative websites.

Still smiling. We'll all get through this. I have great faith in humanity, the planet, and our ability to get this right.

[villager]

28. so we're agreeing, then, that you are relying on rightwing sites to bolster climate change denial?

And I dunno -- does NASA qualify as a leftwing site? New Scientist? Scientific American?

[certainot]

26. i wonder if a lot of the dupe deniers are transferring fear of terrorists to fear of warming

and instead of joining in the attempt to do something about it they will resist all evidence for fear of it being true.

i wish they were right...

[villager]

29. because it's overwhelming, it's easier to deny it...

n/t

[Doctor_J]

14. Sounds like you're in the "All the scientists have conspired in Al Gore's money-making hoax"

camp. Thanks, Glenn, for the daily dose of Roveaganda.

[GMA]

24. Don't watch Beck.

And don't buy the either-or line. Refer to my post above, to Villager.

Now, breathe in, breathe out. I'm not out for a fight. I would like the political and financial forces driving this to at least look at what could be a problem. It's odd that even suggesting there might be bad science and/or corruption is fodder for attack and insult. Let's just follow where the trail leads--there are plenty of people out there now looking carefully at the evidence, and see where it goes.

[whosinpower]

19. Look - we have two polarized camps

On one hand, we have scientists who are saying that climate change is real, and have provided evidence to that. We have a shrinking polar ice cap, shrinking glaciers. We have coral reefs that are dying. We have empty fishnets. We have schools of millions of jellyfish that thrive under low oxygenated water and dead zones in the ocean that are growing. We have starving polar bears. We have crop failures and drought in Australia that is catastrophic.
So, the climate change people are saying that these are consequences that the earth is warming due to co2 density in the atmosphere. These same people are saying that we did this, and in order for the survival of life as we know it, we must change our way of life.

On the other hand, there are those who look at this evidence with scorn. We, as a species could not possibly tip the balance of nature in such a way that would threaten our very existance. It is all just a natural rythym and we should change nothing, do nothing, and leave our mess for others to clean up, if and when that day comes. These same people deny there is a mess, and close their eyes to the evidence staring them in the face. These same people will say it is just a big conspiracy theory to gain money and power.

Whether or not the symptoms we see is manmade or not does not make those symptoms any less worrisome. I would rather do something and try, instead of bury my head in ignorance. It is easy to say that just because polar bears are starving - that can't affect me, right? I can still go to the store and buy my food....and who needs fish anyways? Australia is a long ways away from me, their drought could never affect MY way of life. So what if the pine beetle killed millions of trees and they burned. What do I need a tree for? That can't affect MY way of life. The ocean is big and vast - who cares if there are dead zones?

I am going to give you a little hint. It isn't YOUR or MY way of life we should be concerned about. It is our childrens. Our grandchildren. If our way of life is threatening their future, we have a responsibility to them to try to change and adapt now. We should not condemn them to an existance rife with our mess.

[certainot]

30. well said. but you give them too much credit, their camp may have

some true doubters because of religious reasons or just ignorance, but there is a huge organized effort going on to obstruct obama and many in that effort are not going to be swayed with reason- with limbaugh as their front man they hate and will obstruct anything they consider environmentalist or liberal and they are being used.

there's got to be a better word than 'camp' for the denialists.

[whosinpower]

31. Which is why I have one simple question for them

And it is this-

Right now, this instant, there are about 6.6 BILLION human beings living on the planet. Do you think that 6.6 billion people, with their technology and lifestyle COULD affect the earth's environment and climate?

Yes or no.

Nobody has answered my question. I suppose if they admitted that we, as a species could, then it would open up the possibility that we should change course to provide future generations with a planet just as good or better than what we have right now.
I would guess that if they trully felt there was nothing that mankind could do that would possibly alter or change the earth's environment and climate - try it on for size. It just does not sit right with me. There is no evidence to that position.

[certainot]

32. limbaugh rationalized it

'god' would never let 'his creation' be destroyed by his other creation, or something like that.

there's no sense in it

[whosinpower]

33. He could test that model easily

Put him in a sealed room with no outside air flow and see how long he would survive his own co2 concentration levels. If God would never let his creation be destroyed - then Limbaugh would have nothing to worry about - would he?

And what about extinct species? Did God not create them too?

[certainot]

34. he can rationalize anything, that's why he's paid so much

[Doctor_J]

17. That's the wingers approach to every topic they can't win at

Float a smoke screen and let Big Media catapult the propaganda.

[certainot]

23. 1000 radio stations do the heavy lifting on this

with coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition- i know what you mean by a 'sneaking attempt' but it's likely your state GOP megastations are not being sneaky about it except that the left in general is unaware of it.

this is part of a coordinated effort with paid trolls and limbaugh leading the pack 24/7. most of this is based from radio stations licensed to operate in the public interest and all it has to do is obstruct definitive and quick action on this problem. like with health care the screaming dittoheads will make a difference, enabling flat earthers like senator inhofe and intimidating GOP reps who might be seeing the light, or energy state blue dog dems.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, villager.:thumbsup:

[JohnWxy]

22. as if a couple years of data is cause for throwing out about 100 yrs of upward accelerating trend.

[GMA]

25. Now that was a truly uninformed remark.

n/t