deniers

George Monbiot's Top Ten

George Monbiot’s ‘Top Ten Climate Change Deniers’ reads like a keynote speaker wishlist from the Heartland Institute. Enjoy! 

George Monbiot's Top Ten

George Monbiot’s ‘Top Ten Climate Change Deniers’ reads like a keynote speaker wish list from the Heartland Institue. Enjoy! Top Ten List.

Location: 
Organizations: 

The Global Warming Deniers Are Restless

Just when you thought it was safe to acknowledge the unequivocal reality of global warming…..

Just when you thought the U.S. government was ready to admit that it has a serious emissions problem, and do something about it….

Just when you thought the skeptic party was over…

No way: There has been a strong run of nonsense from global warming “skeptics” and deniers lately. They are not ashamed, and they are not changing their tune. In fact, it sounds like they are gearing up for the next battle.

John Locke Foundation Pats Itself On The Back

A North Carolina “think” tank called the John Locke Foundation is patting itself on the back now for taking so much criticism over the last few weeks from DeSmogBlog and others.

Yes, I'm quite sure that the JLF is pleased with the search results that now appear when you query their organization on google.

Anatomy of a Dupe - the John Locke Foundation

Someone over at Daily Kos found a cached version of one of the bloggers duped by the “Geoclimatic Journal” hoax.

Seems that the fine folks at Environment NC - a blog set up by the ultra right-wing so-called “John Locke Society” were willing to write some pretty glowing reviews of this fake study.

In referring to the “blockbuster” study, Roy Cordato, a “resident scholar” at the John Locke Society wrote:

Clearly this study from the latest issue of Journal of Geoclimatic Studies by four climate scientists–two from the Dept. of Climatology at the University of Arizona and two from the Department of Atmospheric Physics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, should be the lead story on the eveing news tonight. But it is more than likely that it won’t even be mentioned. the paper abstract speaks for itself.”

Hat tip as well to the fine work being done by Adam at Energy Smart blog.

Top 5 Climate "Skeptic" Red Herrings

red herring
n.
  1. A smoked herring having a reddish color.
  2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

Whether it's in on a right-wing blog, an online forum or at a family dinner, we've all heard many lame arguments against the realities of human-induced climate change.

Here's the top 5 red herrings.

Beating Around the Bush

At least to my mind, last week was extremely significant. Last week, George W. Bush for the first time believably acknowledged that human beings are the principal cause of global warming.

Now, I know, I know: There are a few instances from the past where if you listen really, really closely, Bush sorta kinda said as much. But then he would come out and say something else different and contradictory–or Dick Cheney would.

Or Bush would get revealed to have gotten his science advice from Michael Crichton.

Anyways, something would always happen to make you slide the administration right back into the “skeptic”/denialist camp again.

Climate Change: A Cycle Not a Trend?

Those who deny the reality of climate change like to point out that dramatic weather events have occurred in the past; they argue that we may be in the midst of a cycle we don't understand, rather than a trend caused by human activity.

New research from the U.S. National Science Foundation looks at a previous “cycle” – one that occurred 55 million years ago and that resulted in warming-induced changes in sea circulation that appear similar to what are currently occurring in the northern hemisphere.

For those who would take comfort in the cyclical argument, consider that on the earlier occasion, the “cycle” took 20,000 years to reverse itself – a little beyond our current planning horizon.

The Slippery Slope of Climate Change Denial

A great post at www.OpEdNews.com asks – and answers – the question of whether we dare ignore the debate on evolution.

The principal argument is that we should not allow habits of thought that invite or facilitate deception and manipulation. WriterAndrew Bard Schmookler says:

“It matters whether people follow their authorities blindly or they develop the critical capabilities to think for themselves. Perhaps it’s fine to give the Bible unquestioning credence, but unquestioning trust in the declarations of political authorities can be dangerous.”

Pages

Subscribe to deniers