Who is behind climate change deniers?

[Huggy85]

WHEN the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed that smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action.

It engaged in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists. The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science.

In May this year, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-deniers-20080801-3okn.html?page=-1

The chief scientist of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research, Dr Jim Salinger, knows all about misrepresentation. Two months ago, he was named by an Exxon-funded group, the Heartland Institute, as a scientist whose work undermined the theory that burning carbon was a cause of global warming.

The Heartland Institute — essentially a free market lobby — emphasises that "the climate is always changing". Salinger's research studied variation in climate, so his research was enrolled in the denial campaign.

Variations in the climate are normal, Salinger said, but this did not in any way weaken conclusions about the dangers of burning oil and coal. "Global warming is real," he said, and demanded reference to his work be removed. The institute refused. The Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from Exxon, according to Greenpeace's research based on Exxon's corporate giving disclosures.

But perhaps the oil companies' PR campaign is not the main reason for the success of the climate change deniers. There are at least three others. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed by the free market right as a political "orthodoxy" rather than objective knowledge.

The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science was accepted in the end. But climate is different. There are no "smoke-free areas" on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign.

[GenX]

Will someone read this and tells me what it says?

Han's links bore me to death.

[BlueSky]

Ya mean Huggy..

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ya mean Huggy..



</div></div>

My goodness, they're practically interchangeable now! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sorry, Hans 'n' Huggy.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The chief scientist of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research </div></div>

are you kidding me?
I heard from the "chief scientist of the ruler of the universe against hippies and the idea that we can reverse or change climate change is silly" (yes, that is his job title) that..... (insert agenda here)

[Huggy85]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Will someone read this and tells me what it says?

</div></div>

You're dumber than I thought.

[dancingqueen]

one who gets bored is dumb now?

[Huggy85]

I don't think boredom is the issue. Your friend Speedy (who you are clearly defending here) doesn't like (or can't understand) articles that are based on truth and contradict his opinions.

His "MO", as he likes to frame things.

[riggs]

The arguement is redundent.The point is it's time to seriously research alternative fuel sources,unless people feel there is nothing wrong with our present path.

I could be wrong,but that arguement would be a tough sell.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Huggy85</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think boredom is the issue. Your friend Speedy (who you are clearly defending here) doesn't like (or can't understand) articles that are based on truth and contradict his opinions.

His "MO", as he likes to frame things. </div></div>

How am I defending him? I am not defending anyone.
I made a joke about the obviouse byisim that the person quote in the artcle would have, making most of what is said to be irrelavent.
Then I asked if one being bored makes them stupid because you clearly made a personall attack calling R W G R stupid When all he said was he wasn't going to read it...
stop making issues up that do not exist, and stop thinking about everything as you vs them There are more than 2 sides to most arguments....
I preffer to call them debates, but when one resorts to name calling then it just becomes a childish argument.

[Huggy85]

And you are suggesting then that all the articles Speedy links to are not "byisim". Bias is the definition of opinion when it comes to debate.

For the record, I have long become bored with Speedy's links as well.

And, for what it's worth. I never used the word stupid....I said dumb. You and he like putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

[dancingqueen]

Who is Speedy?
Whe you discuss things like climat change it will need more than people's opinions to change people's minds about inconviniencing themselves. People will wan proof, some guy who would loose his job if the world stoped beliving we can change this climate change needs to offer more than just an opinion, otherwise it is pointless.
stupid, dumb, althoughdifferent words, the context thety are being used in means pretty much the same thing. Don't insult people just because you don't agree with them, it's very childish

[Huggy85]

[quote=dancingqueen]Whe you discuss things like climat change it will need more than people's opinions to change people's minds[quote]

I won't argue that. You see, science deals with facts. The majority of the world's scientists (as opposed to journalists) believe that climate change (or global warming, whatever) is real. And most believe that we are at least partly responsible. Science isn't based on opinion.

That is why none of the posts and links that deny that humanity and our wastes has an impact on our climate will change my opinion. And yes, my opinion is a bias; based on what science is telling me.

And every link posted - except those that show hard numbers are opinion on one level or another. How is it that the opinions that agree with you and Speedy (aka; R.W.G.R) are valid, and links that actually offer debate are shunned as "boring" and "biased". How is that debate if only your opinion counts?

[Hans]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Huggy85</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think boredom is the issue. Your friend Speedy (who you are clearly defending here) doesn't like (or can't understand) articles that are based on truth and contradict his opinions.

His "MO", as he likes to frame things. </div></div>

How am I defending him? I am not defending anyone.
I made a joke about the obviouse byisim that the person quote in the artcle would have, making most of what is said to be irrelavent.
Then I asked if one being bored makes them stupid because you clearly made a personall attack calling R W G R stupid When all he said was he wasn't going to read it...
stop making issues up that do not exist, and stop thinking about everything as you vs them There are more than 2 sides to most arguments....
I preffer to call them debates, but when one resorts to name calling then it just becomes a childish argument. </div></div>

I find it funny that someone would come on a BBS like this and then not read the posted messages, yet give comments about it.

[GenX]

I can assume what you guys are saying. I'm usually correct.

I'm much more intelligent than you guys, and as such I deserve a break from reading your sophomoric posts from time to time.

Let me clarify that in calling your posts "sophomoric" I am in no way demeaning you or attacking you; I am simply accepting the reality of the situation, a reality that tells us I am the superior intellect in here. You guys are trying your best, and in that there is no harm and you should be proud. However, to an elite like myself, your posts are sophomoric and elemental.

[Hans]

The reality of the situation is that you are a self centered person, if your above posting holds any truth.

[Huggy85]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality of the situation is that you are a self centered person, if your above posting holds any truth. </div></div>

Self centered, egotistical and arrogant. Explains the lack of debating skills and the inability to recognize anyone's opinion except his own

[GenX]

Stop, you guys /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif ...you're embarrassing me /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif