Climate Change Denial: Delusion or Malevolence?

Fri, 2007-04-06 08:26John Lefebvre

Climate Change Denial: Delusion or Malevolence?

Climate change deniers may be slotted into either of two categories. Whether fossil fuel executives, fossil fuel workers, PR people, lobbyists or members of Congress, they all fit in either one category or the other.

One consists of those who actually believe, against the vast preponderance of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that humans are not driving climate change. The remainder say what they will, careless or regardless of the facts because they have a personal interest in the outcome of the anti-global warming effort.

The former can be forgiven their ignorance or their self-delusion. But the latter are subversives who ought to be treated accordingly. By their intentional interference in the public discourse, they subvert the democratic process - which depends profoundly upon the truth. Their disrespect for fundamental democratic principals betrays their true colours, which are neither red nor blue but the colour of money.

The devastation to which these people have already committed us exceeds by far all danger we will ever experience from terrorism or dreaded immorality.


Comments

I hope the deniers-for-hire around long enough to have to look their grandchildren in the eyes and tell them why they did what they did…. or why they are being indicted for their intentional acts of destruction.
Why is it that the big backers of this blog, Lefebvre and David Kamikazi, are noted con artists? Is Lefebvre out on bail?
have you a real name braveheart?
Pettiness only serves to illuminate weakness. And truth doesn't need to hide behind name calling - but fear and corruption do.
That’s quite a hypocritical and sanctimonious statement, considering the lead article consists of nothing but name-calling!

And have you seen the rest of this website?! Or are you just completely nuts?
How much more evidence do you need? The scientific evidence for global warming is so pervasive and accepted, what else is there to do but call the denialsts names! Here’s a name dumb-ass-that-can’t-accept-that-his-hummer-is-bad-for-him-and-his-fellow-human-beings!
So, the best you can say about this “evidence” is that it is pervasive and accepted?

Well, if that’s all it takes to convince you, then you must still believe that the Sun orbits around the Earth, and that Jews and Slavs are racially inferior to Aryans.

After all, evidence to support those theories were also once pervasive and accepted. Oh, and “denialists” were also called names … and much worse.

I guess that’s what we have to look forward to, from you Global Warming jihadis.
“Existing”

That’s more than your side can say.

And that’s the so-called expert getting paid by the oil industry to lie to the public about the fact that global warming is real and the consequences of inaction are dire.

Anyone standing in the way of taking action on this issue (i.e. Tim Ball, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Tom Harris, Sallie Baliunas etc.) are the ones who should be in jail.

Problem is they’ll be long gone, six feet under by the time the floods come, the heatwaves descend and the world runs out of water.
You forgot to mention the Plague of Locusts.
“But the latter are subversives who ought to be treated accordingly.”

Oh, goody. Show trials. Or perhaps an inquisition, with crude implements of torture.

Nice to see what you people are really all about.
We could have real trials, showing that people like Fred Singer and Tim Ball purposfully delayed action on C02 reductions for their fossil fuel buddies – the evidence is there and no jury would side with the deniers.

The evidence is all there, hell, we could put Singer up on charges of delaying action on tobacco legislation at the same time.
“We could have real trials, showing that people like Fred Singer and Tim Ball purposfully delayed action on C02 reductions for their fossil fuel buddies – the evidence is there and no jury would side with the deniers. “

Yes, I’m sure your trials would really put the fear into anyone who dares question your wisdom, Grand Inquisitor.

Only one problem: no law has been broken.

“The evidence is all there, hell, we could put Singer up on charges of delaying action on tobacco legislation at the same time.”

Brilliant thinking, Matlock! Except, that’s not against the law, either.

Thanks again, for showing us what a bunch of nasty little totalitarians you people really are.

Individuals can be sued for making false statements about other individuals (libel). Corporations can be punished for false advertising.

How are these things different from making widely distributed public statements such as “volcanoes put out more CO2 than humans” or “worldwide glaciers are growing, not shrinking”. Both of these statements are utterly and provably false. If it can be proved that a person or organization has broadcast these statements in the full knowledge of their falsity, then surely this is analogous to libel or false advertising, though the harm done to society is arguably much larger. I think that there is at least room for civil penalties.

I haven’t seen any comprehensive information re volcanoes or on the hundreds of thousands of glaciers worlwide but, thanks to satellite technology and terrestial gravity surveys, there is a wealth of data mostly indicating that the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps are growing. They’re receding locally from some coastlines but rapidly thickening at higher elevations. Nevertheless, the alarmists keep repeating the canard that those massive volumes of ice are melting, and that we’re all going to drown when Gore’s massive floods sweep over the coasts. So, Catch 22, do you also favour penalties for those people, or is punishment reserved for people you don’t like?

Saying they are growing is misleading. While your statements about increasing thickness at higher elevations is true the loss from the coastal areas far exceeds the increases. There is a total net loss. Which you don't seem to point out, and thus yes they are melting. "If" the greenland and antartic ice caps were to melt then yes there would be massive flooding. That statement is far different than the "Volcanos pump out more CO2 than people" or "Ice caps are growing" which is clearly false information, with no truth at all.

How much would global temperatures have to rise to melt the Antarctic, Carl? It didn't melt during the medieval warm period when temperatures were warmer than they are now. A melting Antarctic is not likely even under one of the Goracle's fantastic scenarios. It is just too damn cold there. So where is the water going to come from for Gorewinian-scale coastal inundations?

Right now there is a thickening of the Antarctic ice cap underway, which may be why the eco-doomsters predictions of dramatic sea level increases don't seem to be happening. If there was a net ice loss, wouldn't the rate of sea level rise be accelerating? Measurements show today's rate of rise is the same as it was 100 years ago. Even the IPCC keeps scaling back its predictions for sea level increases with each new report.

John Dowell said: "It didn't melt during the medieval warm period when temperatures were warmer than they are now."

Just where do you get this information? There are no reports I have found which suggest what you are claiming. Either present the information or admit that it is more of the junk science found on right wing web sites (e.g. FOS)

Ian Forrester

Maybe you need to look harder, Ian. Go beyond your no science global warming alarmist web sites.

John, your arguments are just so much hot air. Why do you not answer my questions? You may try and deny actual scientific reports that have been validated but in the long run you are only showing your ignorance of the facts.

You have presented no verifiable evidence to back any of your outrageous claims. You are typical of the deniers; plenty of bluster and shout down the truth but never present any facts to support your case. Honestly, you are a pitiful example of the greedy, selfish and uncaring right-wingers who are prepared to watch the livelihoods of many millions of poor people get even worse so you can continue to live your arrogant lifestyle.

Ian Forrester

Try the CO2 Science website and look for information on the Medieval Warm Period. This web site documents scientific papers related to CO2. So go do your homework, Ian.

I know AGW hysterics desperately want to eliminate the MWP and the Little Ice Age so their line graphs can show that dramatic late 20th Century spike. You probably thought they had it aced when Mann put out his hockey stick graph, later shown to be a hokey stick. But dammit, the MWP just won't go away and what's worse, scientists keep producing inconvenient research showing it was a real and significant bout of warming. And oh yeah there was one before that during the Roman era (must have been all those Roman SUVs), which was followed by a cooling during the Dark Ages. Do you see any pattern here, Ian --warm, cool, warm, cool, warm and so on?

Not only was it warmer than now during the MWP (those documented Greenland farms, Ian) but mankind and the polar bears survived just fine.

Now I know where you get all your wrong information. Try going to an honest site not the rubbish put out by sites such as CO2 Science, CEI, TCS, AEI and Heartland Institute.

Real science is found in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

These denier websites use lies, distortions, cherry picking and outright fraud. In fact, the very reason this site was set up was to reveal the shoddy work of these denier websites and "think" tanks. I'm sure the people behind Desmogblog must just smile when people like you show up and confirm that very premise.

Ian Forrester

OK, Ian, since nothing on CO2 Science passed through your fine-screened ideological filter, check out the name of Jorgen Peder Steffensen. Based on his study of Greenland ice core samples, he says there have been several periods over the last 10,000 years when earth’s climate was warmer than it is now. The Medieval Warm Period, he says, was 1.5 degrees warmer than today’s climate.

So where exactly does he make this claim. All I see from a quick google search is that he talks about climate change ahppening very quickly.

John Dowell, you accused Al Gore of making wild statements, without providing any evidence that he had made any wild statements. Now you are making claims without providing your sources, so I'd say you are the one making wild claims.

Steffensen made the statement in a documentary called "Global Warming -- Doomsday Called Off" that was aired by the CBC (and perhaps others for all I know). It is now on Youttube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=

He was describing results from his work with Greenland ice core samples.

I have shown elsewhere examples of what scientists and writers who follow science have said about the Goracle's claims in his sci-fi movie.

It is obvious that John Dowell suffers from delusions. It would be appropriate to ignore him if he weren't making such outrageous statements and that some impressionable people access the DeSmogBlog for information. Therefore, please refer to RealClimate.org for any scientific information rather than Dowell's ramblings.

Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."

In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."

From April 10, 1007 article in the UK Telegraph entitled "Middle Ages Were Warmer Than Today, say Scientists"

John, if you were a scientist you would be quoting references, not regurgitating garbage from people who are paid to tell you want you wnat to hear.

Where are your refernces? The science says you are just babbling nonsense.

Ian Forrester

I am not a scientist, Ian, but I quote scientists who do climate research or report on it so where do you get off with your statement that "science says I am babbling nonsense". Who or what is this science, Ian?

What you are really saying is that scientists whose views disturb your nice litle AGW theory with inconvenient facts are babbling nonsense. Tough. Get used to it because the research results these scientists report on in lay articles do not seem to support AGW alarmism. They show, in fact, that there is still much to learn and any conclusions at this point that humans cause global warming really have no scientific basis. Here's how Australian scientist Bob Carter put it in an April 7, 2007 article with the title "A Dangerous Climate" in the UK Telegraph

"From this research emerges one implacable fact. It is that - despite the weekly promulgation of new alarmist headlines by notorious warmaholic journalists such as George Monbiot - in no case yet has any climate-sensitive environmental parameter been shown to be changing at a rate that exceeds its historic natural rate of change, let alone in a way that can be unequivocally associated with human causation. This generally happy news, of course, does not mean that the planet has rendered a judgement of "not guilty" upon us, but rather that while the jury remains out a presumption of innocence applies. The scientific equivalent of this is Occam's Razor (the principle of simplicity), under which environmental change is assumed to be natural until cause can be demonstrated otherwise."

There are a handfull of scientists who are regarded in the scientific community as charlatans. One of the best places to find a list of these supposed scientists is on this blog. Look for "who are the sixty". If the scientist you want to quote is found in this list (and very few of them publish papers in the peer reviewed scientiifc literature) you can be pretty sure that what they are saying is, at best, distorted, cherry picked or never been actually shown to be true.

Science has a very rigid set of rules. These rules are set up so that to the best of our ability the information is verifably true. This is what the "peer reviewed" scientific literature is all about.

So don't go calling anyone who exposes your "experts" for what they are, a fool. You are the one being foolish by believing the rubbish (see my definition in another thread) that these people are putting out for the gullible public so that they can feel good about not doing anything about AGW. People like you are arrogant, selfish and completely lacking in compassion for the many millions of poor people world wide who are having their lives disrupted by the AGW deniers.

Read some actual science from people who know what they are talking about. A good place to start would be realclimate.org.

Ian Forrester

Don't be so damned arrogant. You know nothing about me. Who the hell are you to say I am selfish and lacking in compassion? Up yours, pal.

This may shock you, Ian, but being on the Desmogblog deniers list is not evidence that someone is incompetent, maliced, or compromised by filthy oil company profits. It just means that Desmogblog and David Suzuki do not like what they say and would like to marginalize them by trying, in a very ham-fisted way, to smear their reputations.

So you stick with RealClimate if it gives you comfort, Ian, but I choose to be more widely informed.

People on the DeSmogBlog's deniers list have very little, if any, peer-reviewed reports published on AGW. Therefore, they are not authority figures on AGW. Also, those who refute AGW are completely out of touch with the science and are "troglodytes of science". (Maybe that should be the real title of "Friends of Science".)

You are the one showing arrogance.

You are not a scientist and know very little about how science works but make the irresponsible claim that the vast majority of scientists are part of a worldwide conspiracy and only the ones that you decide to support know what they are talking about. Every one of your “experts" is a borderline fraud artist, and this is exactly how they operated during the “tobacco fraud" scheme. There is a large overlap of personnel and they are using the exact same tactics.

If you want to find examples of outright fraud by your band of AGW deniers look no further than the Oregon petition, the two Leipzic declarations and the phony petition put out by TASSC.

Any rational person can see that you are out to further spread the misinformation put out by your arrogant and compassionless friends. You impress no one with your attacks on honest scientists. You only reinforce my opinion of you that you are doing your best to make yourself look even worse than you have shown on previous threads.

I suspect that you are employed in one of the occupations where morals and ethics are sadly lacking.

Ian Forrester

“…but make the irresponsible claim that the vast majority of scientists are part of a worldwide conspiracy.”

Vast majority? Uh, suuuuure. You keep making this claim, but more and more, it rings false. Did they take a vote, or something? No. They didn’t. There are enough scientists who contest your claims.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of scientists. Only a very few (most of the famous 60 are not climate scientists) are AGW deniers. If you want to believe fairy tales that is fine since you are entitled to your distorted sense of reality. However, when you go public and try to tell others that your views are correct when they are very far from the truth then I, and others, will point out your unfamiliarity with the truth of the matter.

Ian Forrester

C’mon! You can’t be serious. And since you’re big on logical fallcies have you noticed more than a few argumentum ad verecundiam’s (arguments from authority) John Dowell has been making?

If that’s a Argumentum ad populum, then all of science is one and there’s a significant gap in the knowledge of laymen and scientists working at the cutting edge of their fields. That is both arrogant and just plain naive. If someone is going to contest ‘claims’ they have to back it up with evidence.

They can’t. That is a plain and simple fact.

Real scientists who are concerned about AGW include:

realclimate.org
IPCC working groups
Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science

That’s good enough for me.

John Dowell wrote "... Get used to it because the research results these scientists report on in lay articles do not seem to support AGW alarmism...." Scientists do not report their research in lay articles; they report their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which means they have to pass high standards.

Look at your sources, John; the Telegraph is not a scientific journal, it's a trashy newspaper which publishes lots of denialist nonsense. If your scientist is spending his time writing lay articles for the Telegraph, maybe it's because his science is not good enough for him to get into a journal.

People don't read scientific journals; they read newspapers and magazines, watch TV and listen to radio. That's where they get their information. I know that probably shocks you, VJ, but it is true.

To communicate with us ordinary folks, some scientists appear in those media to report happenings in the scientific community in lay language. Since I am not a scientist and I like to stay informed about important issues, I read what these people say. Do you object when Suzuki (a geneticist) reports on climate science in lay language?

You are right, the Telegraph is not a scientific journal. Thanks for that revelation. I am not aware of questions about Bob Carter's scientific credentials other than in Demosgblog, which is hardly objective or noteworthy. In addition to his scientific work, Carter seems to be quite active popularizing science in Australia, which indicates he enjoys a public reputation of some note.

You need to think about your sources of information and how reliable they are likely to be. If it's in the Telegraph, it's probably by an AGW denialist.

As for Bob Carter, here are some articles about him. You won't like them because they are critical of him. Tough. Some people deserve to be criticized.

As for public reputation; con men may have good public reputations among the uninformed. They need to be charming in order to con people.

Carl, it’s easy to “win” an argument if you just make stuff up and use it as evidence. I’ve looked at over a dozen papers on the mass balance of the ice caps and yes, there are a couple that back your position, but only a couple. The others all indicate net growth for Greenland and for the average of the east and west Antarctic sheets. If you want to do some checking on the literature, you can start by Googling Johannessen et. al.(2005); Zwally et.al. (2005) and Davis et. al. (2005). Either way, growing or shrinking, the annual effect on world sea levels is less than +/- 0.5mm, so the people of Bangladesh can sleep well - or could if they didn’t have myriad REAL problems to worry about.
W. Krabill,1* W. Abdalati,2 E. Frederick,3 S. Manizade,3 C. Martin,3 J. Sonntag,3 R. Swift,3 R. Thomas,3 W. Wright,1 J. Yungel3 et al, showing a net loss of 51 cubic kilometers of ice per year from greenland, with most of those scientists from NASA. Jay Zwally 1*, Waleed Abdalati 2, Tom Herring 3, Kristine Larson 4, Jack Saba 5, Konrad Steffen 6 showing greater levels of melt due to climate change of the greenland icesheet, researchers from NASA, MIT, and U Colorado American Meteoroligical society http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May32006-ChangesinColdPlace... stating a net decrease in ice from greenland, though its a lunchin presentation. S. B. Luthcke,1* H. J. Zwally,2 W. Abdalati,2 D. D. Rowlands,1 R. D. Ray,1 R. S. Nerem,3 F. G. Lemoine,1 J. J. McCarthy,4 D. S. Chinn4 Showing a net decrease of ice from greenland, researchers from NASA and U Colorado. Thats alimited sample and I am too lazy to search for more papers, but thats hardly only a couple. Zwally papers all show a net loss of ice from the glacier, so I am not sure how you are drawing the conclusion that they are showing a net growth. The NASA studies to which Zwally is a member of are all from the GRACE mission. NASA even states this on their webpage “In an update to findings published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a team led by Dr. Isabella Velicogna of the University of Colorado, Boulder, found that Greenland’s ice sheet decreased by 162 (plus or minus 22) cubic kilometers a year between 2002 and 2005. This is higher than all previously published estimates, and it represents a change of about 0.4 millimeters (.016 inches) per year to global sea level rise.” In regards to the accuracy of the ice estimates, to quote NASA, “These results demonstrate Grace’s ability to measure monthly mass changes for an entire ice sheet – a breakthrough in our ability to monitor such changes.” and continued with “In a demonstration of the satellites’ sensitivity to minute changes in Earth’s mass, the Grace science team reported that the satellites were able to measure the deformation of the Earth’s crust caused by the December 2004 Sumatra earthquake. That quake changed Earth’s gravity by one part in a billion.” In otherwords NASA’s work on the greenland icesheet is the most accurate to date. To further point out NASA states the ice cap is showing a net decline in mass, size and volume.

W. Krabill,1* W. Abdalati,2 E. Frederick,3 S. Manizade,3 C. Martin,3 J. Sonntag,3 R. Swift,3 R. Thomas,3 W. Wright,1 J. Yungel3 et al, showing a net loss of 51 cubic kilometers of ice per year from greenland, with most of those scientists from NASA.

Jay Zwally 1*, Waleed Abdalati 2, Tom Herring 3, Kristine Larson 4, Jack Saba 5, Konrad Steffen 6 showing greater levels of melt due to climate change of the greenland icesheet, researchers from NASA, MIT, and U Colorado

American Meteoroligical society

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May32006-ChangesinColdPlaces.pdf

stating a net decrease in ice from greenland, though its a lunchin presentation.

S. B. Luthcke,1* H. J. Zwally,2 W. Abdalati,2 D. D. Rowlands,1 R. D. Ray,1 R. S. Nerem,3 F. G. Lemoine,1 J. J. McCarthy,4 D. S. Chinn4 Showing a net decrease of ice from greenland, researchers from NASA and U Colorado.

Thats alimited sample and I am too lazy to search for more papers, but thats hardly only a couple. Zwally papers all show a net loss of ice from the glacier, so I am not sure how you are drawing the conclusion that they are showing a net growth. The NASA studies to which Zwally is a member of are all from the GRACE mission. NASA even states this on their webpage

"In an update to findings published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a team led by Dr. Isabella Velicogna of the University of Colorado, Boulder, found that Greenland's ice sheet decreased by 162 (plus or minus 22) cubic kilometers a year between 2002 and 2005. This is higher than all previously published estimates, and it represents a change of about 0.4 millimeters (.016 inches) per year to global sea level rise."

In regards to the accuracy of the ice estimates, to quote NASA, "These results demonstrate Grace's ability to measure monthly mass changes for an entire ice sheet – a breakthrough in our ability to monitor such changes." and continued with

"In a demonstration of the satellites' sensitivity to minute changes in Earth's mass, the Grace science team reported that the satellites were able to measure the deformation of the Earth's crust caused by the December 2004 Sumatra earthquake. That quake changed Earth's gravity by one part in a billion."

In otherwords NASA's work on the greenland icesheet is the most accurate to date. To further point out NASA states the ice cap is showing a net decline in mass, size and volume.

It's refreshing to see someone in this debate (other than the beleaguered Ian Forrester) quoting honest-to-goodness science.
Anon question: “I haven’t seen any comprehensive information re volcanoes or on the hundreds of thousands of glaciers worlwide but,”

Here is one good source.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, CO

Do see this chart:http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/glacier_chart.gif

World Glacier Inventory

Access data
How did we know KF would not look at it.
“How are these things different from making widely distributed public statements such as “volcanoes put out more CO2 than humans” or “worldwide glaciers are growing, not shrinking”. Both of these statements are utterly and provably false.”

Well, then prove it. Good luck with that.

“If it can be proved that a person or organization has broadcast these statements in the full knowledge of their falsity, then surely this is analogous to libel or false advertising”

Analogous? Uh, riiiiiight. Now all you need is a law that says it is illegal to do something which is analogous to comitting an actual offence.

You idiots get more mental every day.

“though the harm done to society is arguably much larger.”

Well, what’s good for the goose is good for The Gore. Your bizarre fantasies would likely backfire on you in an unpleasant manner.

“I think that there is at least room for civil penalties.”

Okay then, Perry Mason. Go for it.
So KF has nothing substantive to add, just name-calling; another desperate denialist.

KF said: "How are these things different from making widely distributed public statements such as "volcanoes put out more CO2 than humans" or "worldwide glaciers are growing, not shrinking". Both of these statements are utterly and provably false."

Well, then prove it. Good luck with that".

How about this: "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

See: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html#reference

KF, don't believe things you read on right wing, anti-environmental web sites since their one aim is to distort the truth.

Ian Forrester

KF, don’t believe things you read on right wing, anti-environmental web sites since their one aim is to distort the truth.”

Sure, whereas left-wing, Global Warmering hysteria web sites are all about The Truth.

LOL!

Pages