Jim Hoggan and Climate Cover Cover Up on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!
Tags: US
DeSmogBlog co-founder and author of Climate Cover Up, James Hoggan appeared on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now this morning live from New York.
As Jim points out, the Yes Men and their US Chamber spoof yesterday are "... not the only group accused of pulling off a hoax in the debate over climate change legislation. In August, the American Petroleum Institute—the oil industry’s top lobbying group—was found to have asked member oil companies to help recruit employees, retirees and contractors for anti-climate bill rallies around the country."
You can go here to watch the video of Jim's interview today on Democracy Now.
I would be great to hear what people think.
Watched the video.
But don't quite follow the demonizing of API ... "the American Petroleum Institute—the oil industry’s top lobbying group—was found to have asked member oil companies to help recruit employees, retirees and contractors for anti-climate bill rallies around the country."
I just don't understand the problem here. People who benefit from the industry were asked to voice support for it. I'm sure they honestly think the oil industry is a good thing and they say so - so whats the scandal. There's no hoax here. It's a bunch of oil people saying oil is good. What else can they possibly do.
Heres a comparison. If some scientists do a bunch of studies and determine that the internet is harmful to people and then all the bloggers get together and say no, no, no reading weblogs is good - keep logging on! ... well what else would you expect?
I'm all for there being an API and a Chamber of Commerce. Its perfectly legitimate to honestly and openly represent an industry and it's interests.
The problem is when such organizations try to deceive the public, or fabricate support for their positions in order to conceal their negative aspects or to maintain an illegitimate benefit.
And that's what the API is actually doing. The recruited employees at these rallies were presented as ordinary "concerned citizens", which was a deliberate lie.
You are offering only your opinion that they are deceiving people. I believe that green NGO's have been far more deceptivie, manipulative and dishonest on the issue of AGW then any other group.
Environmental NGO's have been exxagerating the perils of climate change far beyond what the scientific concensus is. That should be self apparent to nearly anyone.
For example, I did watch 'An Inconvenient Truth' from start to finish. An excellent film by the way too. BUT, there were serious distortions and misrepresentations of the data. That should be readily apparent to most people also.
The API, like all organizations in a democracy, have the right to state their views. They don't have to have them pre-approved by the increasingly hysterical rhetoric of some environmental alarmists who want to silence all dissent.
I am still waiting for anyone to give me PROOF that CO2 is warming the earth. I expect 0.5C warming with a doubling of CO2, but so far no one can support me with any hard data. In fact, the data says the opposite, that temperatures drive CO2, that tropospheric warming is NOT occurring, and that outgoing long wave radiation is still occurring at unexpected high levels.
In the absence of proof, and with the failure of the hypothesis several times, I am left holding the bag.
No wonder the oil companies ask their employees to step up and demonstrate! Gee, I think it is the responsible thing to do! After all, the "warmists" are way way past overdue to prove their case. If 50 billion in funding hasn't been enough.. how much is enough??
I despair for some help here.. give me the PROOF I need, otherwise I will have to say NO WARMING at all is caused by CO2, and I can't believe that!
As for the book mentioned above... pure BS.. but hey, if you can get suckers to buy into a conspiracy theory and make money.. why not.
There is plenty of proof here, you just refuse to read it.
All they have is models, which happen to ignore natural variation. Even then, they disagree so much amoung themselves over feedbacks, it is all premature to call it science.(which IPCC itself cautions)
So if you are so smart.. why do you refuse to provide me with your papers that I "refuse to read"??
I gave you my paper, on OLR and SW authored by: lindzen.choi.grl.2009
I am quite happy with a 0.5 C warming due to CO2, but of course it may be less, due to errors in the temperature reacods (now "lost" by Hadley)
Please..please.. GIVE ME PROOF... I so WANT to get rid of my DENIER status. HELP... please!!! Give me PROOF of catastrophic dangerous sea level rising CO2 polar bear extincting warming.
You want proof of future events? Isn't that like asking for proof that Obama wins a second term or proof that we will see a foot of snow next month?
How can you have proof about the future when even the past is pretty murky?
I posted some real measurements of possible 0.5 C warming due to CO2 with a doubling of CO2.(nothing scary for me)
If you want to dispute lindzen.choi.grl.2009 please be my guest.
I accept thier calculations based on hard measurement of outgoing radiation. That is PROOF of something happening. I see no other hard measurements supporting AGW, but rather the reverse, ie, the failed "troposphere hot spot".
What is your justification for supporting IPCC alarmism, Al Gore frightening children with lies, and NO SCIENTISTS uncovering bogus hockey stick science??????
Rick is a fence sitter with denier tendencies, and can hardly be accused of the actions you describe in your last sentence.
Additionally you don't write very well. How can you post "real measurements of possible"? Especially since we have not yet double pre-industrial CO2 levels?
As for your rather pathetic, and unconvincing, cry for proof, to allow you to rid yourself of your denier status. We can show you what to read, but we can't make you read, nor can we make you think. So poor little lamb that you are, you'll just have to continue to suffer.
Of course, if you did want to examine the issue, you could start by answering those three questions I asked you.
Just give me the proof.
The 0.5 C warming is an extrapolation of the MEASURED change in outbound radiation. Go read the paper. yes, I could have worded it better.
No, you have bumkus as proof.. I laughed when I watched a debate on AGW and the world "expert" resorted to ad homenums because he had bumkus.. if he had anything at all, he would have stated it.(Gavin Schmidt)
You have nothing as well, and are putting up a smoke screen. I am happy to live with 0.5 C warming due to a doubling of CO2.
When will you stop with the scare stories?(or do you want to join the Jim Jones crowd and go to you grave rather than admit you are suffering tunnel vision)
"bumkus" is not a word; possibly you meant "bupkis" which is a Yiddish word. "ad homenums" should be spelled ad hominems, whose meaning you probably could not explain.
Why would anyone bother with the crap posted by a semiliterate ignoramus?
Possibly because it's written with a certain bombastic flair that is somewhat entertaining. Does bad spelling qualify one as semi literate. That's a tough standard.
doing to well on the comprehension. The scare stories aren't mine either. I happen to think they are true but I haven't been posting them.
Also, the questions are not circular, merely repeated. All, I'm trying to do is get you to clear up the confusion when you make contradictory, inconsistent or illogical claims. For example, when this infestation started you claimed the temperature record could not be trusted. You claimed that the planet was cooling, and now you say the planet is warming with a low sensitivity to CO2.
So answer the questions.
I notice you aren't too worried about the warming, and you mention “going to the grave”. If anything you say can be trusted, then it's not too long for you now is it? Maybe that is why you aren't worried.
On the contrary, EdB has bupkis
The science continues to accumulate
Papers on the tropical troposphere hotspot
Toward Elimination of the Warm Bias in Historic Radiosonde Temperature Records—Some New Results from a Comprehensive Intercomparison of Upper-Air Data – Haimberger et al. (2008)
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/leopold.haimberger/i1520-0442-21-18-4587.pdf
Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere – Santer et al. (2008)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Santer_etal.pdf
Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds – Allen & Sherwood (2008)
http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf
Assessing Bias and Uncertainty in the HadAT-Adjusted Radiosonde Climate Record – McCarthy et al. (2008)
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/quarc/McCarthy_etal_JClimate200802.pdf
I watched the video too. It appears that free association and freedom of expression are now dangerous ideas. But considering how green NGO's and governments already vastly outspend corporations on this issue, why are AGW advocates so alarmed.
Has this site ever posted an article that discusses how long co2 stays in the atmosphere, no. Has this site ever reported on global warming advocates taking money from oil companies. A big fat no. Has this site pointed out that their perspective receives far far far more money than skeptical scientists. No. Has this site ever done a cost analysis of regular products versus "green" products. No. Instead, you people sit here and lie and say that green is cost competitive. Wrong, it is not. I am a packaging specialist and I would like to fill some people in on green products. "Green" garbage bags are the most expensive trash bags you can buy, regardless of the brand. "Green" chemicals are the most expensive products in chemical companies. "Green" cups are more expensive than any other cups. A solar powered cell phone charger costs $500, more than most phones costs. Why should anybody buy green? I demand an answer. Richard Littlemore, I want you to personally account for these problems.
They don't seem to get the difference. I go incommunicado for a couple of days, and look what happens? All heck breaks loose!
Seriously, I am old enough to remember when a calculator cost hundreds of dollars, and did nothing like the kind of calculations that you can now do on a $10 keychain, or get on a box of Cheerios. A solar-powered cellphone charger might cost a lot at the moment, but I will bet the next month's mortgage payment that the price will have dropped to a fraction of that within months if the will is there to make it a viable alternative. And how many jobs will be produced making these adaptations?
The arguments of the deniars always assume that nothing else changes. Technology recognizes benefits and catches up. Industry adapts. People shift their behaviours.
Fern Mackenzie
Well, you could spend about $500 for a phone charger. You can always find expensive goods. Then there are normally priced ones. About the cost of four pints of beer. For half the cost of an evening in the pub, you could charge a phone for the next 25 years.
But a taster with science is:
How long will global warming last?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/
Very interesting. I watch Democracy Now every day. DeSmogBlog is now bookmarked.
I'd heard the "news" about expanding glaciers, too, and wondered why the only pictures I'd ever seen were ones that were retreating rapidly every year.
When I hear climate change deniers, it literally makes me feel sick.
Here's a link to a short podcast from Ockham's Razor, an Australian Broadcasting Company program. The subject is Ian Plimer, whose book "Heaven and Earth" denies that the recent acceleration of climate change is human induced.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2716078.htm
GLIMS Data at NSIDC
Global Glacier Recession
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html
Richard, I respect your answer and it was a good one. I'm just trying to make a point here that there are serious issues with promoting green products because it must be done without penalizing existing products. You can buy eco toilet paper, but it is very thin and you may end up using 5 squares instead of 2, with a thicker paper. It is good to use recycled paper towels but they do not have the absorbency that a quality paper towel has. So you might use 4 recycled towels instead of 1 quality towel. Being in the packaging business, I know that Kimberly Clark is a favored manufacturer because they selectively choose which areas to cut down trees. I was wondering if you had any links you could share about toilet paper and trees because I've been hearing that the nice plush paper comes from older trees. However, I have heard this claim disputed because some people have said it does not matter what tree it comes from. This does sound suspicious to me though because there are so many types of trees.
that was meant to be clever, but honestly, I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Of course, you might be talking to another Richard, but you seemed to have failed to find the reply button.