James O'Brien — director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies and former Florida state climatologist, and not listed in the SEJ guide — said of the guide's terms for nonbelievers: "I don't like the term 'deniers.' They're trying to say we're like Holocaust deniers." He didn't make that up. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote that "global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
Hooey Denier Deniers
By Debra Saunders
If you want to convince the world that an overwhelming majority of scientists believes in global warming, then start by ignoring scientists who are not true believers. First, establish lists of scientists with your approved position, then smear dissidents. Soon, up-and-coming scientists will be afraid to cross the rigid green line.
So, the Society of Environmental Journalists put together a guide on climate change that lists a number of publications on global warming, scientists and seven environmental groups, each with positive descriptions. Under the "Deniers, Dissenters and 'Skeptics'" category are four listings -- all negative. They suggest that these folk are venal, partisan and bad scientists, or all of the above.
According to the SEJ guide, University of Virginia professor Patrick Michaels "still claims to be the Virginia 'state climatologist' although the state has disavowed him." The publisher of George Mason University professor Fred Singer's books is connected with the "Moonie" leader, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank has received oil money. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has a flack "whose resume brags of starting the 'Swift Boat' story that injured candidate John Kerry." The short list, with a senator even, suggests they had run out of dissident scientists -- or dissident scientists they could squeeze into the venal-lightweight box.
James O'Brien -- founder of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies and former Florida state climatologist, and not listed in the SEJ guide -- said of guide's terms for nonbelievers: "I don't like the term 'deniers.' They're trying to say we're like Holocaust deniers." He didn't make that up. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote that "global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
It ought to tell you something that the guide focuses not on the issues, but personal issues and credentials of nonbelievers. Ooooooh, a senator has a flack who spins. How nefarious. I'm sure global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore only hired monks.
Most insulting is the insinuation that skeptics are after money, while believers are pure. Nonsense, David Legates, Delaware state climatologist, told me. Dire global warming predictions draw the big bucks in research these days: "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."
"Hooey" is the term also used by Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology, in the (Madison, Wis.) Capital Times, as he explained: "If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, "If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep your mouth shut."
Dissenting scientists do not deny that the planet is getting warmer. As O'Brien noted, "I believe that there is global warming and it's probably due to natural as well as human causes." But also, "It's not occurring as fast as the alarmists say," and its consequences won't be as dire as they say. SEJ should see the value in skeptics who challenge the global-warming orthodoxy -- which can make global warming forecasts more concise -- instead of suggesting that no good scientists have alternative views.
O'Brien sees a schism in the science community, with real-world scientists -- think former Director of the National Hurricane Center Neil Frank -- on one skeptic side, and environmentalists and ecologists, who "if they see more turtles this year than last year, they write a paper" on the worst-case-scenario other.
Legates noted that state climatologists deal in patterns and cycles and "tend to be more skeptical of the extreme climate change scenarios."
Politicians, thus, have begun to stifle state climatologists who are not global-warming boosters -- oddly with little complaint that evil politicians are trying to censor noble scientists.
Oregon state climatologist George Taylor is a skeptic. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, asked Oregon State University to stop Taylor from using a title he had used without complaint since 1991. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, also a Democrat, pulled a similar move on Michaels, who is now the American Association of State Climatologists-designated state climatologist in Virginia.
As if it's a bad thing to be recognized by fellow climatologists, instead of a politician -- at least to the Society of Environmental Journalists.
dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
tinyurl.com/2wma2j
Hooey Denier Deniers
By Debra Saunders
If you want to convince the world that an overwhelming majority of scientists believes in global warming, then start by ignoring scientists who are not true believers. First, establish lists of scientists with your approved position, then smear dissidents. Soon, up-and-coming scientists will be afraid to cross the rigid green line.
So, the Society of Environmental Journalists put together a guide on climate change that lists a number of publications on global warming, scientists and seven environmental groups, each with positive descriptions. Under the "Deniers, Dissenters and 'Skeptics'" category are four listings -- all negative. They suggest that these folk are venal, partisan and bad scientists, or all of the above.
According to the SEJ guide, University of Virginia professor Patrick Michaels "still claims to be the Virginia 'state climatologist' although the state has disavowed him." The publisher of George Mason University professor Fred Singer's books is connected with the "Moonie" leader, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank has received oil money. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has a flack "whose resume brags of starting the 'Swift Boat' story that injured candidate John Kerry." The short list, with a senator even, suggests they had run out of dissident scientists -- or dissident scientists they could squeeze into the venal-lightweight box.
James O'Brien -- founder of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies and former Florida state climatologist, and not listed in the SEJ guide -- said of guide's terms for nonbelievers: "I don't like the term 'deniers.' They're trying to say we're like Holocaust deniers." He didn't make that up. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote that "global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
It ought to tell you something that the guide focuses not on the issues, but personal issues and credentials of nonbelievers. Ooooooh, a senator has a flack who spins. How nefarious. I'm sure global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore only hired monks.
Most insulting is the insinuation that skeptics are after money, while believers are pure. Nonsense, David Legates, Delaware state climatologist, told me. Dire global warming predictions draw the big bucks in research these days: "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."
"Hooey" is the term also used by Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology, in the (Madison, Wis.) Capital Times, as he explained: "If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, "If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep your mouth shut."
Dissenting scientists do not deny that the planet is getting warmer. As O'Brien noted, "I believe that there is global warming and it's probably due to natural as well as human causes." But also, "It's not occurring as fast as the alarmists say," and its consequences won't be as dire as they say. SEJ should see the value in skeptics who challenge the global-warming orthodoxy -- which can make global warming forecasts more concise -- instead of suggesting that no good scientists have alternative views.
O'Brien sees a schism in the science community, with real-world scientists -- think former Director of the National Hurricane Center Neil Frank -- on one skeptic side, and environmentalists and ecologists, who "if they see more turtles this year than last year, they write a paper" on the worst-case-scenario other.
Legates noted that state climatologists deal in patterns and cycles and "tend to be more skeptical of the extreme climate change scenarios."
Politicians, thus, have begun to stifle state climatologists who are not global-warming boosters -- oddly with little complaint that evil politicians are trying to censor noble scientists.
Oregon state climatologist George Taylor is a skeptic. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, asked Oregon State University to stop Taylor from using a title he had used without complaint since 1991. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, also a Democrat, pulled a similar move on Michaels, who is now the American Association of State Climatologists-designated state climatologist in Virginia.
As if it's a bad thing to be recognized by fellow climatologists, instead of a politician -- at least to the Society of Environmental Journalists.
dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
tinyurl.com/2wma2j
posted by:
|
-
Re: Denier Deniers are the real deniers
Wed, March 5, 2008 - 11:01 AM
Just to be clear:
CO2 WILL impact climate. It will~!! I promise you that it will have an effect on climate~!!
I'll back that promise up with money: I bet you a thousand dollars that CO2 will effect the climate.
Any takers?
However, I say it isn't the big magic bullet the warmers say it is. That there are way too many other perfectly reasonable alternatives that are more likely - and all outside man's control - and we didn't make 'em happen.
And that is the sole reason the warmers won't look at 'em~!! It is because they Need a human created emission in order to play their game of silly buggers.
How can the David Suzuki's of the world insist that humans are an evil alien influence and we should all stop breathing today? They need an anthropogenic problem to point to? They need to have CO2 as the magic bullet.
How can the social communists of Europe challenge the United States' absolute dominance of the world's economy? They most clearly have settled on anthropogenic substances as their magic panacea - - and this one happens to be subsequent to a large high tech economy like the USA. They need to have CO2 as the magic bullet.
There are reasons that CO2 has been chosen as the magic bullet.
1.) it is a green house gas.
2.) It's produced in greater quantities by the richer nations.
3.) the poorer nations (where they still live in huts with dirt floors) don't produce much CO2.
4.) Social communists will not let go of their delusions that they have the right path
5.) Social communists need money desperately because their national economies have failed.
CO2, no matter how trivial it's actual effect, absolutely does have some effect on climate so it's the ideal candidate to be the left's ticket to riches and power putting the third world on a welfare train and they get to hold the purse strings (that's power and control). They get to demand money from the USA, they get to revitalize their failed economies and they get to tell themselves their old lies.
And we are all playing right into their hands.
Except the big spoiler in all this is the USA again and the large corporations. It's going to be the big corporations that really benefit from this boondoggle. It's so fucking sweet for them that it seems they may have manufactured it right from the beginning.
They are already selling us cars, engines, electric motors, electronics, chemicals, and mountains of other technology all under the GREEN banner. Corporate America has embraced the warmer's arguments BECAUSE the idiot warmers are a market poised ready to tap and there is no need to waste money on advertising because the idiots have already sold themselves any damn thing that corporate America produces with a green label - - no matter how costly.
The sweetest thing ever for the corporations is the idiot left. They are a market that will buy their shit because their GOD their religion their psychotic politics tells them they must. And they are faithful believers who never question.
Ya know I think maybe the leftists are right. That - - I missed the boat.
THE EARTH IS WARMING OH MY FREAKING GAWD~!!!!!!!!!!!
Step right up boys and girls I have the snake oil in a jar. One sip a day and you will help save the planet and cure global warming.
Here I also have these technical gadgets that will absorb the CO2 you produce and save the planet.
It's all yours for a mere small fee of $30,000.00 payable in installments at 25% interest over a 15 year period (penalty for default is 36% interest fees and costs may apply). So step right up and make your purchase save the planet today~!!
You grand children will live better fuller more meaningful lives and all because of you and your small investment in the future.
God bless you for your wisdom and vision.
Just sign here on the line and date the form please yes yes that's it.
Thanks, that's it here's your copy ``
Now go away kid ya bother me.
NEXT~!! step right up and save the planet ~!!!
