I’ve met enough people who’ve said, in effect, “I’ve done the research and I’ve concluded that global warming is not real/not caused by humans/not such a bad thing.”
Before you start your own research, I suggest you look into some of the people and organizations involved in global warming denial.
I’ll tell you some of the individuals you’ll find:
Sen. James Inhofe, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Fred Seitz, S. Fred Singer, Ross McKitrick and Bjørn Lomborg, among many, many others.
Or, don’t believe Wikipedia? Check SourceWatch.
Among the organizations involved in global warming denial, four of the most prominent are: George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and Cato Institute.
Let’s be clear, these are primarily conservative think tanks, aimed at reducing regulation. We all know how that worked out for the banking industry…
For example, CEI (though their website is off-line as I write this) believes “that people improve their lives not through government regulation, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace.”. So they’re not about science or climate, they’re a conservative think tank and they’re all about deregulation. They strive to deny the science behind global warming, in the interest of corporate profit.
Now, check out ExxonSecrets.org, once you’re past the intro, check out the pre-saved maps, sucn as “Biggest Exxon $$ Winners”, “Fred Singer, Skeptic-in-Chief”, “CEI web”, “Sen. Inhofe and friends” or my favourite, “Climate Science Skeptic Roundup”.
If you’re not convinced, try googling “seitz singer tobacco“, 2 of the top hits today are “The Indisputable Corruption of Frederick Seitz“, “The Corrupt S. Fred Singer, corrupt Fred Seitz…” and “No apology is owed Dr. S. Fred Singer, and none will…” The last one is interesting, as it shows the connection between S. Fred Singer and tobacco lobbyists, whose “product” was doubt.
Or google “inhofe 400 debunked“.
If you still want more reading, here are the environment posts from my other blog, or one from What I Learned Today or, if you prefer, a video.
I can save you a lot of time and confusion in doing your research, because there’s only one factual conclusion: The parties involved in climate change denial are well-connected, well-funded, highly-motivated and not at all concerned about lying or distorting facts. Their ideology is based entirely on free markets and reducing regulation, not about science or protecting future generations. Their method is the same as was used by the tobacco industry, create doubt.
I really believe our climate change is caused by expermenting with missiles, rockets and too many airplanes in the air. When Mt. Saint Helena blew the ash covered Mt and went all the way to Salt Lake City. Down with Gore!!!
Comment by Caroline Miller — 2009-04-26 @ 4:12 pm
This is exactly why regular people’s opinions about complicated scientific issues shouldn’t matter, but it’s also why conservative, “limited government” groups spend so much time and money lying to the public about this issue, because it’s so easy to convince people who have no understanding of the science.
Comment by stone1343 — 2009-08-18 @ 7:47 pm
Also visit http://www.realclimate.org/ to see what actual “climate scientists” have to say about global warming.
Comment by Dan — 2009-05-02 @ 1:43 pm
im going to study about iranian (persian)neonazism.or iranian neo nazi party -which is
dangerous for human right and real islam.and non persian ethnic .right now many thousands ellites of persian nationalists encourage this dangerous policy. more than 212000 title in internet encourage persian assimilation policies and neonazism in iran.which is dangerous for real islam and human rights and peace in middle east and world.
Comment by hawar — 2009-05-04 @ 1:01 pm
But what ‘real’ science is there behind the global warming scaremongers claims?
The only supporting evidence as far as I can find is the computer models which predict catastrophe if C02 levels rise. I cannot find anything anywhere that proves CO2 is capable of increasing global air temperatures in the tiny concentrations found in our atmosphere. Indeed, many years ago, CO2 levels were far higher than today and the world didn’t die off, or melt.
The Climate Change scare is based on a belief that CO2 can increase temperature, but there are no experiments I can find which show this actually happening or how it happens.
The Earth has warmed and cooled for millennia and it will continue to do so with or without mankind’s activities or intervention. Searching for solutions to replace our energy dependence on oil is worthwhile and indeed essential, but using carbon dioxide as the scapegoat and bad guy in the debate is misleading and I believe based on belief rather than science.
And one question for the author of this article.
Why is it OK to attack and target the people who disagree with you instead of providing evidence to counter their arguments? This shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved and a simple ‘I hate the people who disagree with me’ approach instead of an intelligent and logical discussion.
Comment by Peter Roberts — 2009-05-05 @ 6:01 am
I think the point of my article was pretty clear, the denialists are not scientists, they are political groups dedicated to reducing regulation on business. I was not attempting to give the pro’s and con’s because I think that’s one of the problems with today’s media, they present both sides as if it’s a debate. The “debate” has been over for a long time, it’s only the political/business/bible thumping conservatives who still deny it.
You’re quoting standard denialist stuff which has been shown to be factually wrong, so I’m obviously not going to convince you of anything. My goal wasn’t to convert people who’ve made up their minds, it was to get the ones who were trying to figure it out for themselves, before they fall for the propaganda.
But let’s be clear, I don’t hate people who disagree with me, I never mentioned my personal emotions at all. If you want to say I’m “attacking”, so be it, but yes, I think James Inhofe is a joke, and Michele Bachmann uses lines just like you do, “Show me a single study that shows CO2 is harmful” (one of the absolute STUPIDEST things I’ve ever heard).
If all you read is right wing stuff, of course you’re going to want to deny human rights to homosexuals, believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, not vaccinate your kids and not be able to find ANY scientific evidence for global warming. This is why only 20% of Americans are Republicans right now, because their ignorant, intolerant ideology is so disgusting to most mainstream Americans.
In conclusion, as I don’t want to try to argue facts with you, please don’t feel the need to reply. I’m not interested in that type of reader. This is my personal blog, it exists only as an outlet for me to express my opinions. It is no place for you.
Comment by stone1343 — 2009-05-05 @ 11:50 am
Actually, Pete, I think I was too kind to you. You say “I cannot find anything anywhere that proves CO2 is capable of increasing global air temperatures in the tiny concentrations found in our atmosphere” and “there are no experiments I can find which show this actually happening”.
Either you know absolutely nothing about the issue (in which case, shut up and go away) or you’re lying . In fact, I’m willing to bet that you’re out trolling the internet all day, trying to continue to confuse the issue with propaganda terms like “real” science, “scaremongers” and everything else you said that proves that you’re not trying to convince me I’m wrong, you’re just trying to inject a bit of doubt in my readers’ minds. This is exactly the technique I was attempting to illustrate, so thank you for helping make my point.
But I still want you to go away. This is my blog and I use it to express my opinion, it’s not a place for you to spout your nonsense. I can turn off comments altogether, but I know then you’ll say I’m violating your freedom of expression. Just express your opinion elsewhere, not here.
Comment by stone1343 — 2009-08-18 @ 8:20 pm
Saying that global warming is a myth is pure idiocy…
You just don’t argue for that position with logic.
Comment by Callif — 2009-05-22 @ 8:33 pm
The presence of economically-oriented people among the skeptics, such as Ross McKitrick, stems from the high economic cost of some of the proposed remedies to global warming. And, a suspicion that some of the leftists taking the alarmists position want to use the global warming issue to bring in socialistic government by the “Back door”.
If it is economic development that caused CO2 to go up, then it’s only logical to make economic analyses of the situation.
Most of your article fails to make a dent, because you’re mostly not accusing these people or organizations of anything, except disagreeing with you. If you are accusing Ross McKitrick or Bjorn Lomborg of anything wrong, you should come out and say so, or stop trying slander them.
With the exception of true radicals like Ban Ki-Moon on one side and Monckton on the other, the disagreement is about how much the temperature is likely to rise, and what to do about it.
The whole thrust of your article is to settle a scientific question by criticizing some of the personalities involved. Whatever that is, it isn’t science.
Comment by Bill Flastic — 2009-08-18 @ 3:36 pm
First of all, you basically accuse me of “bad science” (or at least “not science”). I never claimed to be doing science, this is my personal blog, it’s a way for people to put their opinions on teh intertubes. Like anything on the net, I may be right or I may be wrong, it’s up to you to decide.
Second, you accuse me of “slander”. I’d hardly say I slandered McKitrick or Lomborg, I included them in a list of who I considered prominent “deniers”, and for each, linked to their Wikipedia page. I will take your point that perhaps “denier” isn’t the best word for either of them and that if I were writing that post today, I wouldn’t have included their names, even before your comment. But, in my opinion, they were both against taking any meaningful action, and according to exxonsecrets.org, they were both connected to the political groups that were the real focus of my post.
Then you say I didn’t make my point. Even on re-reading it today, I think my goal was pretty clear – non-scientists go to Google and start doing their research to decide for themselves if the whole thing is real or not. They find so much of the non-science stuff, and it’s often written such that it’s more accessible to laypeople, that they often end up making up their mind that it’s all a hoax. I’d like to help people see through the non-science.
Further, I think my conclusion is pretty clear and well-supported – these are not scientific bodies, they are political groups, united in their desire for free markets and limited government. If you need more convincing, look at the “About” page of CEI (“The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government. We believe that the best solutions come from people making their own choices in a free marketplace, rather than government intervention. Since it was founded by Fred L. Smith, Jr. in 1984, CEI has grown to a team of over 40 policy experts and staff.”), the Cato Institute (“The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.”) or the Heartland Institute (“Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.”).
You say I attempt to “settle a scientific question by criticizing some of the personalities involved.” You know that’s wrong, what I attempted to do is show that the individuals and groups have political motives and are in no position to enter into a “scientific debate”. These groups are in a campaign to influence public policy by creating doubt in the minds of the public.
To top it all off, you claim that “the disagreement is about how much the temperature is likely to rise, and what to do about it.” That is either an outright lie, or you are so woefully uninformed about what the deniers call the “scientific debate” that you have no right commenting on the issue at all. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you would’ve heard about “global cooling in the 70s”, “medieval warm period”, “natural cycles”, “other planets are warming too”, etc, plus what people such as Inhofe (“greatest hoax ever”), Bachmann (“CO2 is a product of nature”) and all the rest have been saying for decades.
You even use standard propaganda tactics too, the scientists are “alarmists” and it’s only the “radicals” that ever denied global warming.
Conclusion: That statement of yours is a bold-faced lie. You and your people have lost the “debate”, and now you’re trying to re-frame it as if you’ve just been conscientious objectors all along. BULLSHIT!!! Too many people have gone on record for too long for you to pretend the question was only “how much”.
And in fact, why do you even bother coming to my tiny, insignificant corner of the internet? The inescapable conclusion is you were trolling around, looking to make a point for keeping the status quo. You’re basically a professional liar, paid to try to make reasonable-sounding objections on people’s blogs. Who knows, maybe you were the Peter Roberts who commented on May 5. I hope you stay away now.
Comment by stone1343 — 2009-08-18 @ 7:36 pm
[...] Read this before your start your global warming “research”… [...]
Pingback by Where there’s smoke, the climate change Denial lobby « Greenfyre’s — 2009-08-19 @ 8:03 am
[...] under: Uncategorized — stone1343 @ 6:55 pm I’ve had a couple trolls comment on my post about the individuals and institutions involved in global warming denial, one in particular accuses [...]
Pingback by Following up on a comment « Yet Another Atheist Blog — 2009-08-23 @ 6:55 pm