This story is legitimately tragic, but it's far from the first case of climate change delusion. Have they never heard of Benny Peiser? Larry Solomon? Tim Ball? The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? Bob Carter?
Of course, these guys may not be delusional. They may just be lying. But that would involve a judgment rather than a diagnosis .... And either way, a certain sort of sickness abounds.
| Comment: 
| Tools: 
Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science. Thanks to our dedicated readers, the DeSmog project counters the seeds of climate confusion.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. The Desmog project is our answer to industry PR spin.
Thank you for all you do. Please donate what you can. Whether its $10 or $100 every bit helps.
Powered by PayPal
They may just be right.
Which is the most likely scenario in light of recent science.
AGW has in fact become religeon.
30 years of trying to validate it and 50 billion dollars spent and still, it's just a loose theory.
the second known case.
Laughs, high5's you
Gary, Gary, Gary . . .
You just can't see the writing on the wall, can you?
Fern Mackenzie
The "Overwhelming concensus" of 31000 scientists is pretty clear.
BTW; have you read the latest study on the effects of cleaning up the smog?
Seems that alone is now believed to account for at least half of the slight warming we had at the end of the last century.
Lets see, that reduces the AGW affect to about .3 degrees of which half is instrement error and some more is PDO and the rest is solar or
Writing on the wall? Hell, it up in Neon!
Come on, Gary, the Oregon Petition was fatally flawed the *last* time it ran -- unless Ginger Spice counts as a climate scientist. Have you bothered to look at the signatories this time around? Several appear to be ficticious or long-since deceased (some died before the OISM was even formed, let alone the first round of Petition mailings), and precious few have any publications (or even background) relevant to climate science. This also sidesteps the whole "catastrophic" ball of wax (it is possible to accept the scientific consensus and still believe the results will not involve "catastrophic warming", and thus sign the petition), or the academic-fraud elements present in the Soon & Baliunas paper.
You're really reaching for evidence to support your beliefs against science, Gary. Did a scientist scare you as a small child or something?
You dismiss 31000 scientists because some smear artist tell you to and you suggest I am reaching?
And you probably think that there actually were 2500 climate scientists that signed the IPCC propoganda schlock.
Nice try, but really not at all believable.
BTW: Do you also dismiss the 5100 scientist from Alberta and the 4000 from Copenhagen as well?
I think perhaps it is you that is in denial here.
Are you seriously trying to say that there are 5100 climate scientists in Alberta, which has a total population of 3 million? How many of this purported 5100 are really engineers who took a couple of science courses and who work for the oil industry?
Never know, apparently to be an expert you just need to say you are..... :/
Nice to hear from you Fern.
Keep up the spirit.
I suppose anything could be possible.
Can a global economic depression save the world from Climate Change?
This is a debate that we should seriously consider. How bad has Climate Change got…should we voluntarily shutdown our economies to fight Global Warming?
Are we at a point, given the outcome of the G8 meeting, that it would be more beneficial for mankind and nature if our economies where to collapse now, rather than march on causing climatic catastrophe.
I believe that this is a radical alternative measure which should not be ruled out in our efforts to tackle Global Warming. What do you think?
I know it sounds drastic, but there was a depression around the 30s and look were we are at now just 70yrs later. If Climate Change keeps escalating, wont that result in a worse, more permanent outcome? From the now desperate calls of our climate and economic experts it sounds like Hell & High water is just a round the bend.
I am calling for a debate on this to get some input from experts to see if it is a viable solution. Global warming will be catastrophic - a depression shouldn't. We need to look at all the paths forward to survival now!
Rouge share traders do a good one person job.... Bush is doing a darn good job so far! Probably not as difficult to archive as you may think!
Part II - How could this be achieved?
I can't tell if this is Paul S/G attempting a joke.
Kyotocide is the goal of the green left.
It always has been.
It would be an alternative IF AGW were an actual threat.
It is really hard to believe so many people are still pushing this nonsense now however.
The science is quite clear finally.
GW was a perfectly natural cycle and is all but over.
CO2 was never the main driver and was simple used as a guilt tool.
When oh when will people open their eyes.
re: Gary
==Which is the most likely scenario in light of recent science.==
Would you please do us a favor and please tell us what you are talking about when you say stuff like.
What Science? Seriously.
And please don't tell me you actually believed that "Great Global Warming Swindle" video. That video has been debunked in every way possible.
http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3
_
But if you are so proud of your "some science says".
Please tell us what it is.
Rather than resorting to the usual FOX News "some say" routine. (Skip to timemark 17:55)
http://greyfalcon.net/outfoxed
Because frankly as far as I see it, there isn't a single scientific organization in the entire world that says that manmade emissions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past few decades.
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
_
As for natural changes, what you are primarily talking about is changes in the earth's orbit. Except that takes tens of thousands of years to occur. Not decades.
http://greyfalcon.net/milankovitch
...is astounding! Ginger Spice?
Everyone, EVERYONE of the so called petitions, lists, whatever from the "skeptics" have been shown to be DELIBERATE lies or, at least, fabrications.
The Petition Project, the Inhofe 400, the Heidelberg farce.
I believe all the major scientific organizations and associations have released position statements in accord with the consensus. If I remember correctly, The Association of Petroleum Geologists (I may have the name of the group wrong) released a position statement years ago claiming that the science is not quite settled and THEIR membership, Petroleum Geologists for crying out loud, complained so strongly they had to rewrite it, again to agree with the consensus.
Gary, your breed have claimed at one time or another that air pollution was a myth and that dumping industry waste into our water supplies wouldn't hurt anyone.
Just squeeze your syes shut, put your fingers in your ears, and hum.
I am quite serious here. You speak with great conviction, and are clearly convinced that recent revelations in science have knocked the pins out from under AGW theory. What exactly have you been reading lately that I have managed not to find? I am constantly checking the scientific journals for evidence of movement one way of the other, and I haven't seen anything that would justify your pronouncements that "The End (of AGW) Is Nigh!" If you really have something, please be specific.
Fern Mackenzie
Yeah no doubt, I've been hearing that AGW will go away any day now for quite a while, actually over a couple years. Each time its the science is crumbling and will be exposed. Over, and Over, John Dowell posted like that for over 2 years....haha, if anything the world is much closer to doing more about climate change than less. Which would be a good thing of course. By hey this AGW nonsense is going away any day now......
Fair question.
But hard to answer is short blog entry. There is so much from so many sources.
In a nut shell, the AGW hypothesis boils down to:
We don’t know enough about climate to say anything firm so we will assume it is CO2 since we can make our GCMs work if we set sensitivity high enough.
That is about all AGW has to go on.
After 30 years and 50 billion dollars it is still only a loose theory many holes.
On the other hand, there are many good studies that show the Sun having far greater influence than GCM account for.
There is the 30 year climate shift cycle. There is the recent study that claims 50% of the temperature increase was due to less smog.
There is the recent study claiming up to 30% of the warming is due to methane from cows. There is the clear influence from UHI that Anthony Watts is documenting. This BTW is NOT handled properly by Hansen’s famous fudging.
Then there are all the earlier travesties like the infamous Hockey Stick Fraud where they tried to rewrite history and make the MWP dissapear.
The CO2 science site adequately proves that one was a farce.
Bottom line: If your read nothing but MSM, desmog and Realclimate, you will not ever hear about what is really going on. They are either completely faithful (religiously so) or have way too much invested in the multibillion dollar AGW industry.
Just ask yourself some basic questions.
Why does Desmog smear anyone that does not toe the line and ignore their information?
Reason: they simply don’t want you to read it. It would be too damning.
Why do greenies oppose any and all technological solutions?
Their real goal is social re-structuring. It has nothing to do with climate.
Do you really believe that 31000 scientists are all nuts or faked signatures? Really?
And the 4000 in Copenhagen? And the 5100 engineer in Alberta? All nut cases?
And so on and so on and so on…….
I will post a few links in the near future as I find them. As I have said before I don’t keep a database.
Of course, the VJ’s and Ian’s will simply declare them invalid for some made up reason never even look at them, but that is the main purpose of this site so …. What-ever.
Even so, a few people who are truly interested in the scientific method may look at them.
Gary shows his ignorance with every post he makes. You want to understand climate change? Go to Realclimate, where real climate scientists discuss the science, instead of wasting your time on Gary's denialist bletherings.
http://www.realclimate.org/
Incidently, Gary, you changed your story from 5100 scientists in Alberta to 5100 engineers in Alberta. Don't you know the difference?
ohh, thats not good, whatda you mean VJ oil industry engineers arnt climate scientists?....come on now, stop being blinded by lack of credentials, they claim they are experts it has to be true!
Read papers by paleoclimatologists and geologists.
They actually study climate and not virtual climate models.
And they don’t support AGW.
Yes, many of them are not scientists in the same way that many of the IPCC 2500 were not scientists.
You guys crack me up with now desperately you defend the faith.
Makes it actually fun to poke sticks at you.
I used to have to tease the Intellegent design people to get such reactions.
Thanks
Nothing in your response above is new to me, and I have to tell you that I don't form my opinions on the basis of what DeSmog posts here. I do my own research and assess the evidence on its own merits. Your great long (questionable) lists of thousands of scientists just doesn't stand up against the fact that every national scientific body, a huge raft of research published in reputable scientific journals, the vast majority of practicing climate scientists and the evidence itself supports the theory of AGW. I have read the rebuttals by the people who figure they have cracked the conspiracy and it doesn't hold up. At all.
Their real goal is social re-structuring. It has nothing to do with climate.
To paraphrase, Do you really believe that all of those academies and eggheads are part of a worldwide socialist conspiracy? Really? That is truly paranoid. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me that the deniers can populate great long lists with the names of people with some semblence of scientific training who are ready to believe it.
Fern Mackenzie
The bottom line Fern is that you believe what fits your world view. So do I.
AGW is just as unsupportable to me as Natural GW is to you.
In reality, no one has any conclusive science to support either hypothesis.
For ever paper you cite I could site one that refutes it and vice versa.
There is no real world evidence either that does not work for both sides.
Only time will settle the issue and it looks very much like that will happen in the next couple of years.
I only hope we have a viable economy left by then. If Dion and his idiots get their way, we won’t.
Your question about all the scientists being in on a conspiracy? No. But I do believe very few of them is willing to forfeit the AGW gravy train. Many more would not risk their job by bucking political correctness. They are human after all.
Believe what you want. So will I.
Have a good one.
"Natural GW" is not "unsupportable" by anybody. However, most understand that it happens in millenia rather than decades, and it has never tracked man-made CO2 emissions as closely as AGW.
Is run by the most discredited bunch of AGW Propoganda pushers on the Planet.
They are still defending the embarrasing fraud put out by Mann.
No credibility there at all.
You are a liar, Gary.
Wow, thoughtful, deep, well phrased incisive rebuttal.
I’m impressed VJ.
Can you chew gum too?
How unusual, a post by Gary with no spelling errors, though his grammar could use some work. Gary, did someone help you with this one?
A very nice summary of the situation:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
This is a nice summary of the standard denier talking points, each of which are rebutted here individually, with citations to peer-reviewed literature:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
And all crap.
will believe it anyway.
You say:
each of which are rebutted here individually, with citations to peer-reviewed literature:
And in your mind it is settled.
However, those rebuttles are merely one scientist disagreeing with another as happens all the time.
Those rebuttles are rebutted by further rebuttles and so on and so on.
It settles nothing but sites like this one and gristmill pretend that it does.
And the faithfull simply believe.
So I again simply suggest people go and read a broad range information and make up their own minds.