Skepticgate: Revealing Climate Denialists for What They Are

cepheus

Skepticgate: Revealing Climate Denialists for What They Are

Prominent climate skeptic Pat Michaels admitted on CNN that an estimated 40% of his funding came from petroleum industry sources. In and of itself, this was hardly news.

However, Dr. Michaels, according to Rep. Waxman may have knowingly misled Congress into believing that only around 3% of his income came from the energy sector when he appeared before a congressional subcommittee hearing on the climate crisis the previous year. Waxman is now calling to have Michaels brought before the committee to clarify the sources of his funding.

In his letter to the new Republican Committee Chairman Fred Upton, Waxman points out that "Among the scientists who testified before this Committee on the issue of climate change in the last Congress, Dr. Michaels was the only one to dismiss the need to act on climate change."

I say it's time to give the skeptics a taste of their own medicine. Borrowing a term first tweeted by Andy Revkin of the New York Times, let's officially call this "Skepticgate" - a new synonym for the cynical, profit-motivated efforts of the Kochs and Exxons of the world to keep the public disinformed about the real and present dangers of unabated fossil fuel consumption.

Google "climategate" and you get 895,000 results. It's high time we expose the real "gate" in the room. So today I present a challenge:

How many results can we get on "Skepticgate" by the year's end?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/skepticgate-revealing-cli_b_814013.html

Meanwhile it seems climateg*** didn't have much effect on British public opinion after all. I guess views are rigidly polarised on this.

The public's belief in global warming as a man-made danger has weathered the storm of climate controversies and cold weather intact, according to a Guardian/ICM opinion poll published today.

Asked if climate change was a current or imminent threat, 83% of Britons agreed, with just 14% saying global warming poses no threat. Compared with August 2009, when the same question was asked, opinion remained steady despite a series of events in the intervening 18 months that might have made people less certain about the perils of climate change.

A large majority of people think that humanity is causing climate change, with 68% agreeing and 24% choosing to blame non-man-made factors, which again is very close to the August 2009 response, with figures of 71% and 23% respectively

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change

PS spread the word Skepticgate
_______________
change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming. “Target 1: Older, less educated males”..... The Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) 1991

penrhyn

Or you could try Ecomentalist.

Cardew

Why not instead take the 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 because of global warming.

Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.

Well now we have another study by some Scientists that have discovered these glaciers are actually advancing and not retreating!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html

Some scientists have always prostituted themselves for 'funding' The tobacco industry had scientists on their 'payroll' that claimed they had proved that certain brands of cigarette enhanced health by 'clearing the airways'. Take any subject where there are vested interests at stake and you will get scientists to argue for and against if they are well rewarded. Nuclear power would be a good place to start!

So why would the oil industry bankrolling scientists be a surprise?

Don't let us turn this into a discussion about who is correct on Climate change - how much, how little and the effects. You don't know, and I certainly don't know, - it is above our pay grade!!!

cepheus

Some scientists have always prostituted themselves for 'funding' The tobacco industry had scientists on their 'payroll' that claimed they had proved that certain brands of cigarette enhanced health by 'clearing the airways'

Yes I know, they have been recruited into the Denial camp, Fred Singer is one. Gosh now genuine climate scientists are being blamed for the misdemeanors of Deniers because they are scientists!

That is the ultimate insult. Like blaming Jews for WW2 because they were the same Nationality as Hitler (well after they absorbed Austria).

The 2035 thing was just a typo in a massive report blown out of proportion like everything else, at least they accepted the mistake and changed it, unlike some such as Fred Singer. Hang on, haven't I heard that name before?

Singer and the "Glacier Story"
In his May 10, 2005 Guardian column, George Monbiot uncovered a story implicating Fred Singer in the spread of misinformation on the state of the world's glaciers. An expanded version of this story made its way into Monbiot's best selling book, Heat.

To summarize what Monbiot discovered:

Monbiot was researching climate change a couple of years ago and when he became nervous about what he thought was the manipulative nature of the “scientific debate.” Then he found a letter by the UK climate change denier David Bellamy in New Scientist magazine. Bellamy reported that “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich have been growing since 1980.”

This was an interesting–and significant–piece of information. But when Monbiot phoned the World Glacier Monitoring Service, he also found that it was, in their indelicate words, "complete !!!!!!!!." Glaciers are retreating around the world.

Monbiot chased all over in search of a source for this information. The claim appeared dozens of times in many different locations, but all trails seemed to lead back to the website of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, S. Fred Singer’s group.

When people challenged Singer, he first lashed out, saying Monbiot "has been smoking something or other." But Singer finally conceded, in March 2005, that the information had originated on his site – posted there by "former SEPP associate Candace Crandall." Singer acknowledged that the information "appears to be incorrect and has been updated." "Updated," however, is different than "corrected." You could still find the claim on his website 18 months later. Singer also failed to mention that the former associate, Candace Crandall, is his wife

Fred Singers history reads like a criminal record,

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

You have no idea what you are comparing here, it is disgraceful to even try.
If you can't see who are the heros and villians are I'm very sorry for you, it has never been plainer.

eyeinthesky

I was kinda wondering about the flooding due to melting glaciers, but if you get a glass of water and put some ice in, then mark the level, it will go down once the ice melts?

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

The 2035 thing was just a typo in a massive report blown out of proportion like everything else, at least they accepted the mistake and changed it,



You have no idea what you are comparing here, it is disgraceful to even try.
If you can't see who are the heros and villians are I'm very sorry for you, it has never been plainer.

No it wasn't a typo! Read Pachauri's many statements on this issue. The admission had to be dragged from him - this is a pretty accurate summing up:

Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.

He has only retracted the 2035 date. Read:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms

I also don't take kindly to some zealot like yourself telling me that my actions are disgraceful.

I admit that I don't know the facts - but neither do you; and repeated assertions ain't proof!

Stick to your Faith!

ollyshaw

"I say it's time to give the skeptics a taste of their own medicine."

Good science relies on skepticism.

cepheus

eyeinthesky wrote: »

I was kinda wondering about the flooding due to melting glaciers, but if you get a glass of water and put some ice in, then mark the level, it will go down once the ice melts?

No that is sea ice not glaciers. Try measuring the water level, then drop an ice cube in and measure the water level again. That's what a melting glacier does to sea level.

cepheus

ollyshaw wrote: »

"I say it's time to give the skeptics a taste of their own medicine."

Good science relies on skepticism.

It does indeed, but is really the Deniers who they are targeting. The cherry pickers and deliberate distorters of information. The sort which lurk on Watts, climateaudit, climatedepot, Spectator, WSJ, Telegraph, Mail, Express and so on. See this for their devious tricks

Union of concerned Scientists


Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

A._Badger

Anyone still believing the hoary old 'sceptics are funded by big oil and coal' chestnut may find the following interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/warmist_slander_of_scientific.html

It won't convince a true believer, of course. But anyone with an open mind might pause for useful thought.

cepheus

I think your accusations against genuine scientists without checking the peer reviewed data is DISGRACEFUL




http://www.wgms.ch/

World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

Time lapse photography of shrinking glaciers
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-basic.htm