Uh, what? Who says? I suppose anything could happen. It is also possible that the Southwest will find itself with a lot more rain and able to grow a lot more crops and Canada will have a longer growing season.…but when global warming really kicks in then we’ll be seeing much worst than Sandy and Katrina.
What we have here is a very large graphic illustrating the argumentum ad populum fallacy.http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/52dac240eab8ead323034ea0-800-/powell pie chart 2.png width=“200” height=“85”
So what people who doubt AGW are saying here is the 9135 scientists are wrong – because they are biased, corrupted, and evil – while one single scientist and 100 armchair bloggers are right, because they’ve got to be right.
There is a lot of MMGW promoting out there. There’s money in it, and advancement. I have seen the very timorous oil company ads “We’re environmentalists too”. But there are hundreds of billions of dollars invested in “alternative energies”, virtually all by people who do not act as if they believe in it at all. But there’s money to be made in it; largely public money.What we have here is a very large graphic illustrating the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
But to make sure we did not miss it, there is another fallacy of the same type in the text below it.
It says much that the facts are not argued but instead an appeal to popularity is.
Perhaps we should stop spending money on science and instead start spending on an advertising campaign.
After all…4 out of 5 doctors recommend lucky strikes.
One can notice that the promoters of disaster scenarios are not the MMGW doubters. That’s the exclusive domain of the theory’s promoters; the “little people” who have been scared by the “big people” like Obama, Soros, Buffett and Gore who stand to make money on it despite the fact that they manifestly don’t believe in it themselves.…but when global warming really kicks in then we’ll be seeing much worst than Sandy and Katrina. I guess that’s what many people want…sort of the way people like horror movies or gawking at bloody accidents. Maybe our lives have become hum-drum, so people want total disaster on mega-scales even scientists and sci fi writers can’t imagine. Up the ante…
True, but I myself choose not to risk human life and a huge chunk of God’s other creatures (they say were in the 6th great extinction event),* just in case the scientists might be correct in saying it will be bad, and incorrect by underestimating just how bad it will be.Uh, what? Who says? I suppose anything could happen. It is also possible that the Southwest will find itself with a lot more rain and able to grow a lot more crops and Canada will have a longer growing season.
Just because England and Europe will become warmer, it isn’t the end of the world. Change isn’t always bad.
I don’t think anybody has the slightest objection to an individual’s saving energy in his own life. Certainly I don’t. Never have.True, but I myself choose not to risk human life and a huge chunk of God’s other creatures (they say were in the 6th great extinction event),* just in case the scientists might be correct in saying it will be bad, and incorrect by underestimating just how bad it will be.
That’s just me. I’ve never been a risk-taker or gambler. I tend to expect the worst and hope for the best.
I sincerely hope you are right that a better world will come of AGW or it will fizzle out (I may believe it has fizzled out when the temps go back to pre-1980 temps), but meanwhile all my personal efforts to mitigate AGW have at the least served to help mitigate other problems and have saved me money. I have no incentive to stop my small mitigation efforts.
*I saw a program last night in which the person said they wish to help future generations well into the future, but since they will not be around then to help, what they are doing now is working to help ensure a health environment for those future generations. That’s something we can do now to help promote human life on into the future.
Here’s the link to the study – “Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations” – to which the article refers: drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashxThank you for asking.
Not that you will consider this study by Drexel, but I have a few minutes to waste.
Climate Change Denial a Billion Dollar Industry of Fabrication Says Study
Added by Rebecca Savastio on December 22, 2013.
Saved under Rebecca Savastio, Science
Tags: Climate Change
A new study out of Drexel University in Philadelphia has exposed a billion dollar industry of fabrication-a complex construction of false information created by those engaged in climate change denial and the conservative organizations that support that denial…
No one else has jumped on this, so I will:Thank you for asking.
Not that you will consider this study by Drexel, but I have a few minutes to waste.
Climate Change Denial a Billion Dollar Industry of Fabrication Says Study
snip
Can you be a bit more specific about what the billions of dollars are being spent for. It would also be helpful to know what links you are making to tax payers. I do not doubt that money, perhaps even billions are being spent, but I am more interested in cui bono–who benefits. It will help me respond in a better way.No one else has jumped on this, so I will:
Who among the MMGWers would like to account for the BILLIONS (plural) of dollars, many of them taken from the wallets of U.S. taxpayers, that are being spent to promote their side of the debate?
What needs to be remembered is that quite often those who tell the truth about the falsity of man-made global warming are shut out of the peer review process. It’s a bit of an inbred community. The science simply does not add up…and it’s quite easy to see that the proponents of AGW are motivated by all that grant money they get. I ASSURE YOU…if governments offered as much money to conduct research proving global warming was NOT caused by human agency then that is where the overwhelming vast majority of the “peer-reviewed” articles would be. It’s about money and politics…NOT SCIENCE.http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/52dac240eab8ead323034ea0-800-/powell pie chart 2.png width=“200” height=“85”
So what people who doubt AGW are saying here is the 9135 scientists are wrong – because they are biased, corrupted, and evil – while one single scientist and 100 armchair bloggers are right, because they’ve got to be right.
What would happen if they were wrong and AGW really were happening. It just can’t possibly be happening. We’re good people. We wouldn’t do that. We love our children. We’d never do things to harm them. Never. Ergo, AGW just can’t be happening. No way.
Here’s how it works: Scientists, who are employed in universities or gov agencies, apply for grants to do research. Their proposals have to go through stringent peer-review and/or granting agency review, and only a small percentage are accepted. It is a very highly competitive field.No one else has jumped on this, so I will:
Who among the MMGWers would like to account for the BILLIONS (plural) of dollars, many of them taken from the wallets of U.S. taxpayers, that are being spent to promote their side of the debate?
The first five assertions have two things in common: they were pseudo-scientific claims made by the AGW community, and they are all totally bogus.Who has employed deceit?
It is easy to say something is pseudo. If you have examined the evidence and come to that conclusion and others who have examined the evidence come to an opposite conclusion realize that that happens frequently in scientific debate. The only point you made that I take issue with is your claim of conclusion without any valid evidence. That is a serious accusation. There are dishonest individual scientists just like in every trade and profession but to indicate that hundreds or more scientists are bogus and are in collusion goes much too far even for a forum.The first five assertions have two things in common: they were pseudo-scientific claims made by the AGW community, and they are all totally bogus.
Does any of this refute all of the valid scientific work being done? No, of course not but it highlights the question I asked: if the science is so clearly on the AGW side then why were all of these questionable efforts taken?
- Polar bears as a species are in trouble … because of global warming
- The snows of Kilamanjaro are melting … because of global warming
- The glaciers of the Himalayas will soon be gone … because of global warming
- The Little Ice Age (which lasted what? 400 years?) was unique to Europe
- Global warming has led to an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes
- One “editor” on Wikipedia had edited virtually every article (over 4000) that touched on the subject of global warming
- Scientists at the CRU colluded to manipulate the peer review process to exclude papers criticizing AGW
Ender
It is disappointing to me that those who do not believe in MMGW disaster scenarios contribute so ($500 million according to this article) little to counter the propaganda campaigns of Soros, Buffett, Gore, Gates, Obama, etc. What’s the government spent so far? $100 billion is the last I saw. And, of course, that doesn’t count the enormous amount spent by the left wing media. If you counted their “MMGW commercials” as paid commercials, it would surely dwarf that $500 million.Here’s the link to the study – “Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations” – to which the article refers: drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx
True, but that is not what happened. In the IPCC AR4 report, for example, the assertion was made that the glaciers in the Himalayas were melting. The reference in the report turns out to have been to a magazine article written by someone at the World Wildlife Fund. If that doesn’t constitute pseudo science I can’t imagine what would and the question again is: why does this stuff keep happening?It is easy to say something is pseudo. If you have examined the evidence and come to that conclusion and others who have examined the evidence come to an opposite conclusion realize that that happens frequently in scientific debate.
I think you meant “collusion”. This appears to be what happened based on emails that were released from a CRU server. It is all part of the “Climategate” story. Based on emails written by some of the senior staff the charge of colluding to interfere with the peer review process seems quite reasonable. Were you unaware of this?The only point you made that I take issue with is your claim of conclusion without any valid evidence.
This falls under the category of: “Frankly, Scarlett I don’t give a …” The question for both sides is: are the scientific claims being made verifiable? If they are then the reason one makes them are irrelevant. I have raised issues with the integrity of some on the pro AGW side but that doesn’t mean, even if true, that their research is invalidated. All of this huffing and puffing about the denial industry is not meant to disprove their positions but to discredit them so that they are not even considered, let alone refuted.Climate Change Denial a Billion Dollar Industry of Fabrication Says Study
The study found that stockholders who could be affected by climate change legislation are major funders of the CCCM. Two big players are Exxon Mobil and Koch Enterprises, although, according to the study, both of these organizations have recently “pulled back” from making easily identifiable public donations and have shifted to “untraceable sources,” also called “dark money,” to disseminate funds to the CCCM.
There is much more to the study which can goggle.
Perhaps if you removed your goggles you would see there is less to this story than the screaming headlines imply.Your almost certain rebuff should be entertaining for Sunday morning reading.
You are basing your opinion on a mistake (could have been done purposely )magazine article and a few emails from a couple of bad apples. all I can say … I can’t say anything.True, but that is not what happened. In the IPCC AR4 report, for example, the assertion was made that the glaciers in the Himalayas were melting. The reference in the report turns out to have been to a magazine article written by someone at the World Wildlife Fund. If that doesn’t constitute pseudo science I can’t imagine what would and the question again is: why does this stuff keep happening?
I think you meant “collusion”. This appears to be what happened based on emails that were released from a CRU server. It is all part of the “Climategate” story. Based on emails written by some of the senior staff the charge of colluding to interfere with the peer review process seems quite reasonable. Were you unaware of this?
Ender