climate deniers

Mon, 2014-10-27 22:59Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Video Mash Up Shows Climate Denial Streak in Republican Midterm Candidates

At town halls and candidate debates across the country, Republican and Democratic election hopefuls are being asked where they stand on the important issue of climate change. Many of their answers have been recorded for posterity.

A new video short produced by Republic Report's Lee Fang shows just how off-side Republican candidates are in this midterm election cycle when it comes to the overwhelming scientific evidence that human behaviour is to blame for the current climate and atmospheric disruption we are experiencing. 

Lee told me earlier today that he would have liked to have balanced the story a bit by finding Democratic candidates who also deny the basic science behind climate change, but he was unable to unearth any such footage.

Watch it:

H/T to Huffington Post Politics.

Wed, 2014-10-15 02:00Chris Rose
Chris Rose's picture

Europe Poised to Press Ahead on Drastic Greenhouse Gas Reductions As Other Nations Lag Behind

Solar farm

Pressure continues to grow for European politicians to agree to further reductions of greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2030.

The European Union’s 2020 climate and energy package, which is binding legislation, calls for emissions to be cut by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. In addition, the plan calls for energy efficiency savings of 20 per cent and a 20 per cent increase in renewable energy technologies.

While the European Union seems largely on track to meet those targets, later this month politicians are going to vote on even greater emissions reductions, energy savings and growth in renewables by 2030.

In January, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, published the 2030 policy framework for climate and energy.

Despite six years of economic uncertainty, the plan includes targets to reduce EU domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent below the 1990 level by 2030, which would ensure that Europe would meet its objective of cutting emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050.

Mon, 2014-06-09 09:54Guest
Guest's picture

Years of Living Dangerously Concludes with Obama Slamming Climate Deniers

This is a guest post by Brandon Baker, originally published on EcoWatch.

You’re not the only one who gets frustrated when John BoehnerMarco Rubio and others in Congress turn a blind eye to devastating, scientific evidence regarding climate change.

In an interview with Thomas L. Friedman scheduled to air tonight as part of the final episode of Years of Living Dangerously, President Barack Obama revealed that he’s really no different than many of us when it comes to climate deniers.

Does he ever just want to “go off” on those who ignore extreme weatherrainforests getting steadily less green and more, Friedman, an author and New York Times columnist, asked. Does he ever feel like asking, “What is wrong with you people?”

Absolutely,” Obama said with a smile. “Look, it’s frustrating when the science is right in front of us.” 

The president went on to challenge the leadership of deniers because they overlook reality.

Mon, 2013-10-21 16:18Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Why the Media Is Right to Toss Climate Deniers' Opinions

Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times officially confirmed the paper is no longer running letters to the editor that deny the scientific conclusion that climate change is a reality and is caused mainly by human activities. 

Prior to this, the magazine Popular Science went even further and completely turned off the comments section for its entire website, stating quite eloquently that, “Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to 'debate' on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.”

The L.A. Times editor stated the paper's reasoning as, “Letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there's no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.”

The Sydney Morning Herald has subsequently announced it also won't allow climate deniers to “misrepresent facts” on climate science in letters - an especially powerful case given the terrifying fires ravaging Australia against a backdrop of continuing broken heat records.
 
As the former Editor of DeSmogBlog, most of the climate deniers and self-proclaimed skeptics I have encountered over the years have been paid by Exxon, the Koch brothers or other such industry interests, making a good living as fake experts for hire. They are manipulators of the truth.

Of course, not all are paid mouthpieces, and some of them just simply believe that climate change isn't happening or it isn't caused by burning fossil fuels. 

To those people not being paid by industry to sell doubt, to those who in their heart-of-hearts actually question the realities of climate change, I would say they have every right to submit their opinions as letters to a newspaper.

But just like the guy who sends in a letter each week to the paper insisting he was abducted by aliens, or that 9-11 was a hoax, it is up to the paper to decide what to print and what to throw in the waste basket.

Tue, 2013-09-24 15:51Guest
Guest's picture

Attacks on Climate Change Science Hinder Solutions

By David Suzuki.

Starting in late September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its Fifth Assessment Report in three chapters and a summary. Not to be outdone, contrarians have unleashed a barrage of attacks designed to discredit the science before it’s released. Expect more to come.

Many news outlets are complicit in efforts to undermine the scientific evidence. Contrarian opinion articles have run in publications in Canada and around the world, from the Financial Post and Washington Post to the Australian and the U.K.’s Mail on Sunday.

In the Guardian, scientists Dana Nuccitelli and John Abraham point out that attacks cover five stages of climate denial: deny the problem exists, deny we’re the cause, deny it’s a problem, deny we can solve it and claim it’s too late to do anything.

One attack that’s grabbing media attention is the so-called International Climate Science Coalition’s report “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.” It’s written by Fred Singer, a well-known tobacco industry apologist and climate change denier, with Bob Carter and Craig Idso, also known for their dismissals of legitimate climate change science, and published by the Heartland Institute, a U.S. non-profit known for defending tobacco and fossil fuel industry interests. Heartland made headlines last year for comparing people who accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change with terrorists and criminals such as Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski!

Read Singer’s report if you want. But it’s full of long-discredited claims, including that carbon dioxide emissions are good because they stimulate life. It’s not the goal of deniers and contrarians to contribute to our understanding of climate change; they want to promote fossil fuel companies and other industrial interests, a point explicitly stated in the Heartland-ICSC news release.

Tue, 2013-09-03 18:58Guest
Guest's picture

Conspiracies Fuel Climate Change Denial and Belief in Chemtrails

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

I recently wrote about geoengineering as a strategy to deal with climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. That drew comments from people who confuse this scientific process with the unscientific theory of “chemtrails”. Some also claimed the column supported geoengineering, which it didn’t.

The reaction got me wondering why some people believe in phenomena rejected by science, like chemtrails, but deny real problems demonstrated by massive amounts of scientific evidence, like climate change.

Chemtrails believers claim governments around the world are in cahoots with secret organizations to seed the atmosphere with chemicals and materials – aluminum salts, barium crystals, biological agents, polymer fibres, etc. – for a range of nefarious purposes. These include controlling weather for military purposes, poisoning people for population or mind control and supporting secret weapons programs based on the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP.

Scientists have tested and used cloud and atmospheric seeding for weather modification and considered them as ways to slow global warming. With so many unknowns and possible unintended consequences, these practices have the potential to cause harm. But the chemtrails conspiracy theory is much broader, positing that military and commercial airlines are involved in constant massive daily spraying that is harming the physical and mental health of citizens worldwide.

I don’t have space to get into the absurdities of belief in a plot that would require worldwide collusion between governments, scientists and airline company executives and pilots to amass and spray unimaginable amounts of chemicals from altitudes of 10,000 metres or more. I’m a scientist, so I look at credible science – and there is none for the existence of chemtrails. They’re condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet exhaust mixes with colder low-vapour-pressure air. This, of course, comes with its own environmental problems.

But what interests me is the connection between climate change denial and belief in chemtrails. Why do so many people accept a theory for which there is no scientific evidence while rejecting a serious and potentially catastrophic phenomenon that can be easily observed and for which overwhelming evidence has been building for decades?

Thu, 2013-05-02 19:40Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

DeSmog’s Graham Readfearn Joins Guardian Environment Blog, First Post Jumps to Guardian UK Front Page

On his first day joining the Guardian Environment blog, DeSmogger Graham Readfearn’s first post - How climate scientists are being framed - quickly gained traction and ended up featured on the Guardian’s UK front page.

Bookmark the Environment Guardian blog, and keep your eyes peeled for Graham's column, called Planet Oz. 

Send him some praise on Twitter @readfearn (and follow him if you don’t already). 

Congratulations Graham

Thu, 2013-04-25 14:35Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

President Obama Slams Climate Deniers on Twitter

You don't see this every day. President Barack Obama used Twitter today to call out climate deniers in Congress who are blocking political action to address climate change. 

The tweet links to this video released by Organizing for Action, the 501(c)(4) campaign group that promotes the President's national agenda. 

Sun, 2013-03-10 16:25Graham Readfearn
Graham Readfearn's picture

Climate Denial Industry Hits Courts And Hollywood As Threats Fly

THE climate science denial industry doesn't like Penn State University's Professor Michael Mann very much.

Mann is the scientist behind the famous “hockey stick” graph that first appeared in the journal Nature in 1998. Mann and two other scientists Professor Raymond Bradley and Professor Malcolm Hughes had reconstructed temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere from the year 1400 to present day using data mainly from tree rings, ice cores and modern temperature readings.

The following year, the same three scientists extended their study to reconstruct 1000 years of temperatures and published this in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Each time the team plotted their data on graphs and each time the plots showed what is the now famous “hockey stick” shape with a sharp uptick in temperatures towards the end of the century.

Sat, 2013-03-02 15:17Graham Readfearn
Graham Readfearn's picture

Lord Monckton Threatens Climate Scientists, Again

MEMBERS of London's famous gentlemen's club Brooks's have no doubt cooked-up a few bizarre plots, plans and wagers over the years as Britain's gentry and ennobled upper class sipped on glasses of port in their smoking jackets.

In 1785, for example, there was an agreement between two Lords to hand over 500 guineas if one of them managed to have sexual intercourse with a woman in a balloon “one thousand yards from the Earth” . There's no record to suggest that the arrangement, recorded in the club's Betting Book, was ever paid.

The exclusive men-only enclave lives on and still attracts high-profile figures, although Rupert Murdoch's son James' application ran into trouble over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Club member and climate science denier Lord Christopher Monckton put Brooks's famous address to good use this week for a letter sent to the University of Tasmania.

Pages

Subscribe to climate deniers