Slashdot Mirror

Ever wonder why people are skeptical of claims like this?

Because the fossil fuel industry funds media campaigns to discredit sound, reliable climate science? (Please see: http://www.merchantsofdoubt.or...)

Even their own climate science that they were doing in the 1970s? (Please see: https://www.scientificamerican...)

Putin and his sanctions-busting minions are out in full force today, which makes it like every other day. Who needs fake news when you can instantly blackhole rational discussion?

Insightful snarky comment? Gotta mod that shit into oblivion before it catches on! When I comment mid-stream, I easily earn 15 mod points for insight. Post first in a discussion on climate change? Instant karma destruction. This is why I rarely bother commenting anymore.

It isn't Slashdot's fault—though poor summary editing doesn't help inspire discussion. It isn't even the fault of regular commenters. The old crew is still here and trying our best. No, the fault lies squarely with the paid trolls. If you dare seek the truth of the scientists paid to deny the science of climate change, cancer from smoking, the ozone hole and more, watch Merchants of Doubt. Where you suspect the scientists studying climate change of being a secretive society bent on profiting from false science, you'll find a true industry paid to flat out deny actual science without evidence. But it's not even their fault. They were sold on anti-Communism and are acting out of a belief that addressing climate change will kill capitalism.

Quite frankly, I start to get pissed. Ok, folks, from both sides of the fence, please tell me why. Why would the "other side" lie, and lie so vehemently to start something that is nothing short of a religious war by now?

If you really want to know, you should probably read or watch Merchants of Doubt (or do both). The interviews with global warming deniers in the movie are particularly illuminating.

What's in it for you, specifically?

Nothing, really. Mostly, I post corrections when people write things that are ridiculously wrong.

I also submit that Global warming / Climate Change has been ruined by the alarmists overstating there case rather than presenting clear and accurate statistics and claims.

There is enough blame to go around all sides of the political debate. But the science was always clear. The NAS showed that there was scientific consensus in 1979, and the public was on board, until Luntz, and some ex-tobacco propagandists got at it in the mid 1990s. Their actions are a matter of public record, but for some reason most people aren't interested in the actual history, except for some historians. And the political manipulation continues. Part of that is to always accuse the other guy of exactly what you are doing.

Senator Inhofe is a well-known climate change denier. That he is in such a position makes me want to weep.

(See eg http://www.desmogblog.com/jame... )

For counterpoint book recommendations, I suggest:

'The Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskes and Conway
  http://www.merchantsofdoubt.or...

'This Changes Everything' by Naomi Klein
  http://thischangeseverything.o...

Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.

The George Marshall Institute, (an anti-environmentalists, pro-tobacco think-tank), threatened networks and newspapers with legal action over the fairness doctrine, the spirit of which is that public media is a public resource, and that both sides of debates should always be present.

This was back in the commie-Reagan era. There were real communist threats back then. Reagan wanted to build the absurdly expensive and naive strategic defense initiative, aka "Star Wars", and pretty much every scientist in America said it was a stupid waste of money and could never work. And even if it did, then the Soviets would be forced to respond with some other ridiculously expensive piece of technology. (The Soviets saw Star Wars as a complete joke.)

So... how to do silence a consensus of scientists? Well, the tobacco industry had been doing just that for 30 years by then. Get a few true ideological believers: (e.g., Frederick Seitz) and make a whole lot of noise, and if the newspapers/tv don't play along: sue them with deep corporate pockets.

This worked. Mass media started to give false balance to an industry funded effort to rape the tax payer of trillions of dollars on a stupid missile defense system that had no chance of working.

Then Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine (giving birth to right-wing radio), the Soviet empire collapsed, and the ideological believers moved on to other targets. Specifically: fighting regulations on passive smoking, acid rain, and the ozone whole... and of course climate change. In all cases the tactic was exactly the same, and this very small coterie was/is massively funded in spreading "doubt". You can read a ridiculous amount of grizzly details in Merchants of Doubt.

The point is that we create society however we want, and the load whining of creationists is just part of the game.

That is just simply wrong. There are powerful intrenched interests with their misinformation campaign, and a bunch of sheep who think they're rebels for repeating the tortured logic of others, but that is really the sum total of the opposition to change.

And make no mistake, change is coming. The USA, Germany and China are leading the way in creating alternative sources of energy. The Germans and northern Europeans in particular are figuring out the engineering problems of using renewables on the grid. And the price of renewables is decreasing exponentially. Wind is now cheaper than every fossil fuel save gas, and will be cheaper than gas in five or so years. Solar is a little behind, but exponential is exponential.

Sure there are problems left to solve, but don't let anyone fool you into thinking that nobody cares. In fact, some of the smartest engineers and scientists in the world are figuring this out, and there is plenty of government and industry money to do "right" by the next generation.

If there's one major problem, its that the issue is a political football, but in the end, the smart money will move on, and the fluff heads will be left with wild conspiracy theories about how coal/oil was better all along, and a bunch of communists destroyed a perfectly good industry.

Doesn't matter how warm Europe is. Cold weather mean good times for trolls. These people really mean what they say. The public debate in climate change is barely grapling with the elementary difference between local and global temperatures, and that's exactly what the trolls want.

How would you know if you were seeing the results of that funding or not?

Propaganda is pretty damn obvious. That's why.

Not if you believe it. If propaganda weren't effective, no one would bother using it.

So why is it that the Koch brothers only need to provide a little doubt and not the AGW theory advocates? Where's this magic asymmetry coming from?

That's a good question, why do you think the AGW theory advocates need to provide more evidence that the do nothing advocates? If you want a real answer, you could try reading a little.

Those numbers ignore that most of the programs can easily be linked to climate change propaganda.

Is it really propaganda if climate change is actually threatening the species the WWF is trying to protect?

Last I checked, those made up most of the news stories that WWF puts on its main website.

I checked today and 1 out of the top 5 stories is potentially linked to climate change (solar panels for families in need).

I consider that situation analogous to some Christian soup kitchens. They feed the poor ass their primary mission, but those they help get some Christian propaganda with their food.

Whether or not that's an apt comparison, I don't see how it impacts your original argument that the Koch brothers are obviously out-spent by Greenpeace and the WWF. All of this is besides the point, which is that combined Greenpeace and the WWF spend roughly $100 million per year on advocacy, which is 0.1% of the estimated gross revenue of Koch industries. Koch industries, if they though it was important to do so, could easily outspend them. Please stop trying to move the goalposts.

I don't see oil companies being particularly hungry for shills else they'd have a pile of them.

But they *do* have a pile of them..

It is, in fact, many of the same people who helped obscure the underlying science in both cases. Nicely documented by historians Naomi Oreskes and Naomi Oresekes in Merchants of Doubt.

Actually, they use the same public relations companies.

The most important thing to do is actually spot-check references. This is so poorly and rarely done that you will very quickly sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to arguments about climate change. (And pretty much anything else.) Sure it takes time, but you learn a *lot* by following how people argue.

It is not too difficult to separate the signal from the noise, but you have to eschew black and white thinking. There are plenty of "earth-is-holy" nutcases out there who desperately believe in AGW, and have no friggin' clue about anything other than their spirit guide. But those people do not work in universities.

If you are interested in seeing some detailed analysis on "skeptic" arguments, then I recommend Peter Hadfield's excellent 5 video series on Monckton: Monckton Bumkin. Sure he makes fun of Monckton, but you'll see why if you actually watch some Monckton videos and then try and trace the arguments. Monckton walked away from a direct conversation with Peter Hadfield on Monckton responds to Potholer54 on the "skeptic" website WUWT.

If you are interested in how information flows through society, then Naomi Oreskes has an excellent book on the disinformation campaign: Merchants of Doubt. It is a little too detailed for a light read, but the details are stomach churning in their audacity.

Getting to the core of the scientific issues is more work. I'm working on a phd, and have a long background in math, modeling, and also some understanding of scientific culture. That type of experience doesn't just fall in your lap. skepticalscience does a good job.

It only amounts to one side adopting the other sides tricks and using them effectively for the first time.

Wait. Which side is doing this for the first time? Are you accusing George Soros of copying the Koch brothers?

• Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
• Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE
• Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements
• Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions
• Simulation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
• Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change
• Nonannular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent

This little canard about Antartic ice being okay will continue well beyond being a pants-on-fire bald-face lie. We will have to wait until it is *so* obvious that Antartica is losing ice, that even Glenn Beck has to admit it. But then, the forbes (and the conservative think tanks) will just slip right on to another canard.

History repeats itself. We've seen this before.

In particular, America and China.

China recognizes the necessity of action, and are developing huge wind farms. (6 at 20GW each. By comparison, France uses 80GW.)

A majority in the USA would like to see some action, and indeed, 1/5th of the USA lives under a carbon trading scheme -- with no evidence of any economic damage. A carbon neutral tax takes from the utility companies bottom line, and generates demand for energy efficient products and infrastructure. The official rggi report specifically shows that this is what has been happening over the last 10 years, with net savings for both consumers and business. Furthermore, this region of the US economy has grown in proportion to the rest of the USA. The "damage" of a carbon tax is a conservative myth. And besides, many Republicans want action on climate change, including supply-side economics guru Art Laffer.

Now, China wants the west to pay through the nose before it officially ties itself to any legally binding targets. Same with India, and the rest of the developed world. In my opinion, they have a victim complex, which does have some legitimate basis. But seriously: grow up.

But, returning to your post, it is too black-and-white to suggest that nothing is happening in the USA. And in China, the boots are marching.

Only the regressive climate-change denial machine stops real and cheap action on AGW, and for purely philosophical reasons that are not grounded in out best understanding of either science or economics. These people are not oil industry shills (although they do have oil-sugar-daddys) but they do really believe in the imminent threat of climate-change legislation.

History will not remember them kindly.

You know how those office doors have jokes on them? 3 of the doors had the math behind the IPCC model with snide comments and exclamation marks. If you think their math is valid I don't think you've sought professional guidance there.

Sounds like bullshit to me. These mathematicians could advance their careers by publishing -- something that academics are under pressure to do.

Follow the money.

Indeed. Follow the money. But really, you just gotta know what a cognitive bubble is to understand how "skeptics" can firewall themselves from their elementary mistakes.

There is a reason we had little political problem reducing CFCs, and thus have a healing ozone.

The industry lobbied hard against it -- all the same arguments that are used a AGW -- including economic Armageddon. Then some analysis pointed out that California refrigeration businesses could use a new coolant and were better placed to do so relative to the world industry. Legislation was passed almost instantly.

This pattern has been going on since the 1950s. You'd think people would wise up to the manipulation. But gee... we have you talking about CO2 being exhaled by mammals -- implying that somehow CO2 concentrations cannot be too high to cause problems. This is kindergarten level ignorance. Easily disproved. For example, you drink water each day, right? Don't believe you can have too much of something natural? People have died from drinking too much water. The fact that this is a main "argument" of "skeptics" -- is proof that "skeptics" believe anything that sounds like a good story.

Propaganda

Well, scientists have been sidelined by a sustained multi-decade propaganda effort. Frank Luntz was the (modern) author of the war on climate science, but he comes at a long list of propagandists who have a well-oiled machine. (See Merchants of Doubt for a jumping off point on a stupendous amount of evidence for this point.)

The extensive social psychology research on belief and the transmission of information has been used by marketing and political institutions -- but not by scientists. Given the extra-ordinarily bizarre quality of the public discourse on the topic, scientists are finally warming to the idea of making use of science in science communication.

What the scientists are proposing is not really propaganda, but trying to find ways to transmit information that actually work. Frank Luntz and his cohort are going more for the Noble Lie, which /is/ really propaganda.

You're right, there is too much noise.

That noise was created on purpose, by a bunch of elderly anti-communists who believe that misleading and defrauding the American taxpayer is a patriotic act if it increases the chances of using nuclear force against a bunch of dirty commies. I'm totally not kidding. These people are pro-nuclear power because they feel that increases the likelihood of an American nuclear strike on Communist China, they are pro-warming because they feel that technology is the best path forward to a nuclear strike on Communist China. Seriously, totally not kidding. The activities of these people are pretty well documented in the book "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes. These people also shape the debate at Wikipedia and here on Slashdot; they employ staff to make posts with titles like "Scientific Literacy .vs. Concern Over Climate Change" (think about the phrasing there, as opposed to what the article is actually about).

You asked for "a nice, easy summary page, summarizing all the relevant studies so far, and what they imply or mean when it comes to climate page. AN overall summary taking every study into account, giving a good indication, meaning to oppose it is to go against peer reviewed studies or to speculate without a firm basis". This has been attempted a dozen times, but every effort will cause the creation of an equally compelling disinformation site.

No, hypotheses that withstands tests over time do not rely on people _wanting_ them to be true or _believing_ in them - which are words used together with "consensus"

Merriam-webster's definition of consensus: general agreement

If you don't have a general agreement on what is true and what is not, how do you tell what is true?

It's completely irrelevant and the concept of a consensus brings nothing to the scientific table.

The scientific consensus (what is generally accepted as true) is the feedback loop that allows science to progress.

As far as I know, it's only used by conservative scientists who want to dismiss scientific challenges (see the links I posted).

And those scientists were actually doing their proper job which was to be sceptical of new claims. When the scientists provide compelling evidence, the new theory is admitted into the consensus. The scientific consensus is the body of science.

Regarding the Heartland Institue, their total budget and the payouts according to fakegate won't even get you a cup of coffee in a big university. Thus it's proved conclusively that they (at least) do not operate a "denial machine" (your words).

That's specious logic. First, I'm not aware of any big university that has only a single climate science faculty. Second, when presented with evidence that the Heartland Institute (among other similar organisations) pays people to argue that global warming isn't happening, you choose to say they're probably not paying them enough so it doesn't count? It looks like you're in denial. I suggest you try reading Merchants of Doubt or "Don't Get Fooled Again: The Sceptic's Guide to Life " by Richard Wilson. The media loves stories with conflict, they bring in more product to sell to their advertisers, so it doesn't take much to get them to promote the "controversy" angle. That's before we consider media bias and outright distortions on the issue itself.

If you read Merchants of Doubt, you will see a hideously long paper trail of extensive resources that have been put into the anti-environmental campaign. It is all sourced and documented.

What you say is simply not true.

The fossil-fuel industry outspends greenpeace 10-1 on lobbying and advertising in the USA. That is not a level playing field.

Sure they do . . .

http://s11.postimage.org/a4nogfi5f/us_heartland_spending.jpg

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

~ Upton Sinclair

If you read Merchants of Doubt, you will see a hideously long paper trail of extensive resources that have been put into the anti-environmental campaign. It is all sourced and documented.

What you say is simply not true.

The fossil-fuel industry outspends greenpeace 10-1 on lobbying and advertising in the USA. That is not a level playing field.

If Dr. Hansen had been abusing the authority of his office, he would have been fired long ago. The fact is, even though he was effectively muzzled by the Bush administration for years, he survived that abuse because the quality of the work he performs is 1st rate, and his scientific contribution to man's observation, analysis and understanding of atmosphere and its part in determining climate is invaluable.

Your opinion and the BBC articles referenced for this posting use language that is indicative of the editorial politics played to discredit the arguments made by responsible, knowledgeable scientists who seek to inform our electorates and their representatives. You use ad hominem (towards the man) attacks in an effort to discredit the man because you don't want anyone to attempt to understand the science, and BBC presents polls and foundations staffed by economists and politicians without presenting the science or the consensus opinions of the scientific community.

The fact is that the International Panel on Climate Change has issued several reports that have rarely been presented accurately in the mass media, and even as the ongoing analysis reveals that the conservative estimates that were watered down by international political and economic interests controlling the U.N.'s committee erred to downplay the projections, the reality is that man's impacts are actually on the higher side of the range predicted by the extrapolations.

There is nothing responsible about a business as usual approach to the future when we know that it will lead greater numbers of people to a diminished future quality of life, but I understand that people like you, who believe that quality of life comes is determined by 'sound financial planning' and size of your own personal bank account would rather not deal with anything that might interfere with your personal lifestyle choices.

It's simply a matter of fairness, balance, respect for the future and a willingness to be responsible to an ethical approach to life that drives people like Dr. Hansen to attempt to educate others about our collective need to develop our future beyond the limits of selfishness, personal greed and reckless consumption for the sake of a global economic system that will inevitably collapse under the weight of environmental failure if we don't voluntarily find the means by which to adapt to the unintended consequences of the changes we have brought to the natural world.

The conservative anti-science movement extends well beyond religious institutions. Pretty much every conservative think-tank is part of an anti-science agenda. You should learn more about it, because it is destroying a great party, and conservatives need to push back against the internal forces of greed and ignorance. It is pretty chilling.

A lot of misleading statements here. Unfortunately, there are some very wealthy interests that stand to lose from efforts to control CO2, and spend a lot of money spreading misinformation. Scientists end up having to play "whack-a-mole," constantly refuting well-known falsehoods

Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released).

False. Analysis of stations that (according to Watts) were found to be well sited and not subject to urban heat island effects show the same increasing temperature trend, indicating that correction for urban heat island effects (by methods which have been published) cannot account for the warming trend. Independent analysis has multiply replicated these results. Moreover, satellite measurements, which are not subject to this bias, show the same trend.

Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.

False. Arctic warming is not merely a "presumption;" it is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including measurements of loss of arctic ice and satellite data.. And the antarctic, far from being "presumed" to be warming, is predicted from climate models to be relatively slow to respond to global warming trends, and the best way to estimate precisely how temperatures are changing in various regions of Antarctica, based upon satellite as well as weather station data, is a matter of active ongoing debate in the scientific literature.

Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycle

However the scientific evidence shows clearly that the current warming is not due to the "solar cycle."

that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere

There are multiple factors impacting global temperatures over the past 200 years, of which CO2 is only one, so one cannot naively simply ask "which came first?" Correct accounting must take into account all factors, including changes in solar irradiance, human particulate pollution, volcanic eruptions, and human CO2 pollution.When all of these are taken into account, CO2 is found to be the cause of the modern warming trend.

the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.

This is entirely a strawman, as no scientist has ever claimed that modern warming or high CO2 is unprecedented in the history of the planet--what is without precedent is the enormous numbers of people living in areas that will be massively impacted by changes in sea level, or huge numbers of people being dependent upon reliable an

Not terribly, some people are still arguing that "it ain't happening!" and some people are still arguing "it ain't people that's doing it!" and some people are arguing "it's the sun!" and some people are arguing "it's not getting warmer, it's getting colder!"

These endless infantile arguments over the well established basics are derailing and inhibiting discussion and debate on the very topics you mentioned.

Of course, that's really the point of the "science is not settled" campaign being waged by the "Merchants of Doubt". They've done it for tobacco, asbestos and others, the goal is to delay an action that might be harmful to their products by waging a PR campaign to convince people that "there is no link between smoking and cancer", "asbestos presents no health risks at all" and "Global warming? If it's happening why is it so dang cold right now?"

It's a little depressing how easily Americans are manipulated by a well crafted PR campaign.