What, exactly, do warmists think that deniers are denying?

[SSDD]

do any of you from the warmer side of the aisle actually want to specify what you think deniers deny? or better yet, do you want to bring up some other areas that both skeptics and warmers agree upon.

They don't think Ian. They wait for something to happen and then blame it on AGW and set about rewriting history and altering whatever data is necessary to be able to say "We told you so."

 

[Abraham3]

Is that how you would describe AR5? Can you note any specifics?

 

[SSDD]

Is that how you would describe AR5? Can you note any specifics?

AR5 was a colossal failure and yet, the IPCC is even more sure of its claims today. No science there...just a sincere belief that gaia will spew her wrath on us soon.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's the kind of thing a snake oil salesman would say.

It IS what 'oil' salesman are trying to sell...

I don't run snake oil in my car. Snake oil has no value unless you are a believer.
They are highly regulated. Ideologues like you can't stick to facts. You rely on emotional appeal, guilt by association, misrepresentation, propaganda, etc. Every dirty trick known. The irony is that the only ones fooled are you.

Even though the most blatant evidence of their plan to launch a well funded PR and disinformation campaign was leaked years ago when the American Petroleum Institute issued their 'action' plan in 1998. And that action had nothing to do with science. It had everything to do with preserving their profits.

Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan

Victory Will Be Achieved When

Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Wow. What disinformation! Question uncertainties in science is wrong to you? We should just let ourselves get regulated into third world status? I want them to be profitable so they continue to provide the service. Unlike you, I am not a hypocrite.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

Which is true. Sounds like you are allergic to the truth.

Is it really possible that you can be THAT obtuse? There is NO discussion of 'science' or interest in the 'truth' in this memo.

It is a PR strategy plan by an industry that has ZERO interest scientific truth where their only 'interest' is preserving their profits.

If you can't decipher that reality, I suggest you grab the hand of an adult before you attempt to cross a street.

 

[Iceweasel]

Is it really possible that you can be THAT obtuse? There is NO discussion of 'science' or interest in the 'truth' in this memo.

It is a PR strategy plan by an industry that has ZERO interest scientific truth where their only 'interest' is preserving their profits.

If you can't decipher that reality, I suggest you grab the hand of an adult before you attempt to cross a street.

Where's the mirror icon? It says to question what hasn't been proven by science. That actually is the scientific method. But the article wasn't pretending to be a scientific thesis so your complaint is odd. If they said reject all man made global warming reports and you'd have a point.

 

[gallantwarrior]

o The Earth is getting warmer at a rate unprecedented in millions of years
o That warming is being caused by the Greenhouse Effect operating on increasing levels of GHGs in Earth's atmosphere.
o The primary source of those GHGs are human activities: the combustion of fossil fuel for power and transportation and deforestation for development, mining and agriculture.
o This warming represents a threat to our well being from a number of directions: rising sea level, alterations in rain patterns, alteration in seasonal timing, increased weather intensity and so forth.
o To minimize the harm this process will cause, humans need to minimize their GHG emissions. This is best accomplished by replacing coal and petroleum combustion with renewable sources such as solar (PV and thermal), wind, tide, OTEC, geothermal, hydroelectric as well as nuclear.

So, you agree with all of that, don't you. Any reasonable person would.

Really, the absolute best way for humans to limit their emissions is to minimize the number of humans. I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation of those who believe that humans are a major factor in "global warming", or "climate change" (whatever the current buzzword is) in the "minimize humans" green program..go ahead, do us all a favor, your personal contribution to decreasing human damage to the planet will be welcomed.

 

[mamooth]

I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation

Yet another denialist offering to have himself killed. However, whether he volunteers or not, we still can't kill him.

That is the logic he's using. It would be crazy and stupid to kill the liberals, the productive people who don't rape the environment. If you're going to off someone to save the planet, logic dictates you'd have to start with the parasitical wastes of protoplasm, the conservatives.

Fortunately for such conservatives, we liberals reject their calls for violence against themselves, as we reject all calls for violence.

 

[Bfgrn]

Is it really possible that you can be THAT obtuse? There is NO discussion of 'science' or interest in the 'truth' in this memo.

It is a PR strategy plan by an industry that has ZERO interest scientific truth where their only 'interest' is preserving their profits.

If you can't decipher that reality, I suggest you grab the hand of an adult before you attempt to cross a street.

Where's the mirror icon? It says to question what hasn't been proven by science. That actually is the scientific method. But the article wasn't pretending to be a scientific thesis so your complaint is odd. If they said reject all man made global warming reports and you'd have a point.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

They are not "question(ing) what hasn't been proven by science", they are DENYING what has been proven by science, and have launched a well funded assault to destroy ANY action that will cut into their profits.


Global Warming Deniers Well Funded
By Newsweek Staff
Filed: 8/12/07 at 8:00 PM | Updated: 7/1/10 at 1:33 PM


Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the "Live Earth" concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts, "green" magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore's best-selling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies—are altering climate.

...

As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk about addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action.

...

The reaction from industries most responsible for greenhouse emissions was immediate. "As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," says historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research. ICE ads asked, "If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis [or Kentucky, or some other site] getting colder?" This sounded what would become a recurring theme for naysayers: that global temperature data are flat-out wrong. For one thing, they argued, the data reflect urbanization (many temperature stations are in or near cities), not true global warming.

Shaping public opinion was only one goal of the industry groups, for soon after Hansen's sweat-drenched testimony they faced a more tangible threat: international proposals to address global warming. The United Nations had scheduled an "Earth Summit" for 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, and climate change was high on an agenda that included saving endangered species and rain forests. ICE and the Global Climate Coalition lobbied hard against a global treaty to curb greenhouse gases, and were joined by a central cog in the denial machine: the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank. Barely two months before Rio, it released a study concluding that models of the greenhouse effect had "substantially exaggerated its importance." The small amount of global warming that might be occurring, it argued, actually reflected a simple fact: the Sun is putting out more energy. The idea of a "variable Sun" has remained a constant in the naysayers' arsenal to this day, even though the tiny increase in solar output over recent decades falls far short of explaining the extent or details of the observed warming.

In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers—the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen.

 

[Iceweasel]

They are not "question(ing) what hasn't been proven by science", they are DENYING what has been proven by science, and have launched a well funded assault to destroy ANY action that will cut into their profits.

It hasn't been proven, you need to get some air.

Global Warming Deniers Well Funded
By Newsweek Staff

Newsweek reported it? Where is my funding? Who do I send the invoice to because Newsweek is completely unbiased.

The word denier used to mean those that reject Christ. Looks like a new religion has formed.

 

[Bfgrn]

They are not "question(ing) what hasn't been proven by science", they are DENYING what has been proven by science, and have launched a well funded assault to destroy ANY action that will cut into their profits.

It hasn't been proven, you need to get some air.

Global Warming Deniers Well Funded
By Newsweek Staff

Newsweek reported it? Where is my funding? Who do I send the invoice to because Newsweek is completely unbiased.

The word denier used to mean those that reject Christ. Looks like a new religion has formed.

The peasants for plutocracy on the right like you SOMEHOW believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines...

You are now officially a 'peasant'...a useful idiot who parrots the lies, misinformation and propaganda for FREE, while the people who have trained you make BILLIONS...

Peasant meet you crew...

 

[bripat9643]

I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation

Yet another denialist offering to have himself killed. However, whether he volunteers or not, we still can't kill him.

That is the logic he's using. It would be crazy and stupid to kill the liberals, the productive people who don't rape the environment. If you're going to off someone to save the planet, logic dictates you'd have to start with the parasitical wastes of protoplasm, the conservatives.

Fortunately for such conservatives, we liberals reject their calls for violence against themselves, as we reject all calls for violence.

You reject calls for violence?

?Execute? Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ?At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers? ? ?Shouldn?t we start punishing them now?? | Climate Depot

Prof. Richard Parncutt: Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers? | Tallbloke's Talkshop

College professor: ?Jail climate change deniers!? « Hot Air

RIT professor demands jail for climate change deniers | The Daily Caller

Just a small sampling of the AGW hate.

 

[Abraham3]

Which one of those quotes Mamooth, Paddy?

 

[bripat9643]

They are not "question(ing) what hasn't been proven by science", they are DENYING what has been proven by science, and have launched a well funded assault to destroy ANY action that will cut into their profits.

It hasn't been proven, you need to get some air.

Global Warming Deniers Well Funded
By Newsweek Staff

Newsweek reported it? Where is my funding? Who do I send the invoice to because Newsweek is completely unbiased.

The word denier used to mean those that reject Christ. Looks like a new religion has formed.

The peasants for plutocracy on the right like you SOMEHOW believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines...

You are now officially a 'peasant'...a useful idiot who parrots the lies, misinformation and propaganda for FREE, while the people who have trained you make BILLIONS...

Peasant meet you crew...

Yeah, how dare those evil corporations provide us with cheap and reliable power, transportation and plastics.

It's outrageous!

 

[bripat9643]

Which one of those quotes Mamooth, Paddy?

Mamooth said "we liberals."

 

[Abraham3]

So what?

 

[mamooth]

You reject calls for violence?

Yep. Like I said, it's a liberal thing, despite your phony quotes and dishonest cherrypicks.

In contrast, you, Bri, are a proud Stalinist who has openly called for the imprisonment of anyone who disagrees with your political party on the global warming issue.

Most denialists don't take it as far as Bri. They usually only want the scientists sent to the gulag for disagreeing with TheParty, while Bri wants everyone packed into cattle cars.

 

[Iceweasel]

Most denialists don't take it as far as Bri. They usually only want the scientists sent to the gulag for disagreeing with TheParty, while Bri wants everyone packed into cattle cars.

Not me. I just want to wean them off of the fat government titty and let them find honest work.

 

[Bfgrn]

It hasn't been proven, you need to get some air.
Newsweek reported it? Where is my funding? Who do I send the invoice to because Newsweek is completely unbiased.

The word denier used to mean those that reject Christ. Looks like a new religion has formed.

The peasants for plutocracy on the right like you SOMEHOW believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines...

You are now officially a 'peasant'...a useful idiot who parrots the lies, misinformation and propaganda for FREE, while the people who have trained you make BILLIONS...

Peasant meet you crew...

Yeah, how dare those evil corporations provide us with cheap and reliable power, transportation and plastics.

It's outrageous!

Cheap? Coal is one of the most expensive forms of fuel. It is only 'cheap' because the American taxpayers subsidize all the negative externalizations. You ignorant right wing parrots HATE anything that resembles a TRUE free market. Every one of the 28 major environmental laws were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.


Who Pays for Climate Change?

U.S. Taxpayers Outspend Private Insurers Three-to-One to Cover Climate Disruption Costs

Despite the lengthy debate on the federal budget in Congress, climate change rarely gets mentioned as a deficit driver. Yet paying for climate disruption was one of the largest non-defense discretionary budget items in 2012. Indeed, when all federal spending on last year's droughts, storms, floods, and forest fires are added up, the U.S. Climate Disruption Budget was nearly $100 billion.

The startling reality:

• America's taxpayers paid three times what private insurers paid out to cover losses from extreme weather.

• The federal government spent more taxpayer money on the consequences of 2012 extreme weather than on education or transportation.

Overall, the insurance industry estimates that 2012 was the second costliest year in U.S. history for climate-related disasters, with more than $139 billion in damages. But private insurers themselves only covered about 25 percent of these costs ($33 billion), leaving the federal government and its public insurance enterprises to pay for the majority of the remaining claims.

In fact, the U.S. government paid more than three times as much as private insurers paid for climate-related disasters in 2012.

 

[Iceweasel]

Cheap? Coal is one of the most expensive forms of fuel. It is only 'cheap' because the American taxpayers subsidize all the negative externalizations. You ignorant right wing parrots HATE anything that resembles a TRUE free market. Every one of the 28 major environmental laws were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.


Who Pays for Climate Change?

U.S. Taxpayers Outspend Private Insurers Three-to-One to Cover Climate Disruption Costs

Despite the lengthy debate on the federal budget in Congress, climate change rarely gets mentioned as a deficit driver. Yet paying for climate disruption was one of the largest non-defense discretionary budget items in 2012. Indeed, when all federal spending on last year's droughts, storms, floods, and forest fires are added up, the U.S. Climate Disruption Budget was nearly $100 billion.

The startling reality:

Overall, the insurance industry estimates that 2012 was the second costliest year in U.S. history for climate-related disasters, with more than $139 billion in damages. But private insurers themselves only covered about 25 percent of these costs ($33 billion), leaving the federal government and its public insurance enterprises to pay for the majority of the remaining claims.

In fact, the U.S. government paid more than three times as much as private insurers paid for climate-related disasters in 2012.

Oldest trick in the book, only not well implemented. Accuse your enemy of having your shortcomings. The operative word here is 'parrot'.

The fact that extreme weather has caused massive damage is not evidence that the weather was the fault of man. You are stuck in a circular logic loop. For the record I don't think the federal government should be financially involved with personal property damage. We just had a massive mudslide here and now there are federal dollars involved. It was a known weak area, they shouldn't have ever built there but people moved in and enjoyed their view. Very tragic but it shouldn't be up to the rest of the country to pay for it with borrowed federal monies.

 

[Abraham3]

Then why did those people pay federal taxes?