Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-27-2019, 02:33 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722

Climate Denialists, by and large, know that they are lying


Note: this thread is not about any individual on this forum. Rather, it's about media figures, most notably on the right, who push climate denialism talking points.

In a recent thread on climate change, Sam Stone had this to say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Quote:
Let me ask you this. Do you acknowledge that Crowder, Shapiro, Carlson, Moore, Limbaugh, and other like them are liars?
I don't think they are liars. I think they have let their ideology lead them down the path of rationalization, fueled by being in a bubble and confirmation bias [...]
(Snipping because the rest of the quote really isn't germane to the topic, or the previous sentence.)

I don't think this is true. In fact, I think giving climate denialists the benefit of the doubt like this is both unreasonable and dangerous, as it allows fundamentally dishonest actors to abuse the intellectual charity inherently expected in the free marketplace of ideas to push lies that will (and indeed already are) hurting millions of people.

So what evidence do we have that these people are not just iedologically biased, but actively lying?

For one, because the evidence they cite contradicts them. BeepKillBeep went over this with Crowder, but you can find similar among other denialists.

For example: "Hide the decline". Right-wingers across the board were drawn in by climategate, but it's actually really hard to read the emails in context and come away with the conclusions that many of them took from it. You have to lie about the context (and pretend that they weren't adding the "real temps" to hide the decline)... And nearly everyone on the right did. This is still an article of faith for many on the right.

Here's another great example: Christopher Monckton liked to cite a paper by Rachel Pinker. Pinker basically told Monckton in no uncertain terms that he was badly misinterpreting her research. Monckton then continued to cite Pinker's paper after said debate... to congress. He knew it was wrong and repeated it anyways.

In fact, about Monckton... Skeptical Science keeps a list of all the myths on global warming that Monckton spreads. It's a really, really, really long list, with many elements contradicting each other. This is not the position of an honest scientist. This is behavior more on par with a creationist who doesn't even believe what he's being paid to say. Weird, right?

Now, you could make the argument that Monckton is an outlier here. I'd say that it's weird that so many of his talking points are shared by others like Patrick Moore and Rush Limbaugh. But this misses the big picture. Fossil fuel companies have known about global warming since the 1970s. They were aware of the consequences, and they were aware that it would be bad for business if it got out. So...
Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.
This next bit is particularly telling, IMHO.
Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.
Emphasis mine.

The truth is that the entire right-wing media ecosystem exemplified by people like Crowder, Carlson, Shapiro, and Limbaugh has been taking money from oil companies to spread propaganda for a very long time. Every single one of those people has close ties to institutions run by the Koch brothers, who stand to profit from global warming denialism. The Daily Caller is funded by them. Glenn Beck and The Blaze are funded by them. Reason is funded by them. And so on and so forth.

Climate denialists, at least ones in the public sphere, do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Beyond even the basic step of treating them as fundamentally unserious (which they definitely are, make no mistake), they do not deserve to be treated as though they believe what they say, because, by and large, they don't. They are being paid good money to lie to you about the most serious issue facing humanity in the 21st century, and there is absolutely no reason to treat them as anything but propaganda mouthpieces for the people who want to sell our future short for a few extra bucks.
  #2  
Old 11-27-2019, 08:04 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,829
Well, I agree of course. It is beyond obvious that many of the climate-change-denying commentators are lying. There is absolutely no doubt that they are aware of the reports and data because they discuss them. They wildly distort the findings, usually by cherry-picking particular sentences. The reason this works is scientists tend to be cautious in their wording. So it usually isn't hard to find some sort of weaker statement on which to pounce. There is only one word to describe this behavior. Lying.

And look, if you're reading this and you're going to post times that somebody on the left did the same thing, save your electrons. If they did it, then I'll call them lying on that issue/statement as well. If you're going to post about some environmentalist group and some of their aims, I'm more than willing to say I agree with aim X,Y but not Z. E.g., the Sierra Club that came up on the other thread. I agree with protecting forests. I agree with opposing coal. I disagree with their stance on nuclear power. See, it isn't that hard. You can partially agree and disagree with a group/speaker that's predominantly on their side.

What I've observed is that people in general, although it seems to be somewhat worse on the right at the moment, have a difficult time separating issues. It is all-or-nothing thinking. It Crowder, Shapiro, etc. are lying about climate change, and I admit they're lying about climate change, then I'm admiting they're lying about everything. At the moment, the right is very much in lock step with their leadership and commentators. I referenced this in the Trump Impeachment thread as well. I claimed that none of the usual suspects will discuss FOIA reveal until after the Republicans/Fox News/Right-wing Media have released their talking points and they didn't. I'd say I'm a prophet, but it was not a difficult prediction. If you look at the long-running political threads, then it becomes very easy to see. The comments exactly track with the latest talking points, and almost always post-facto, and almost never in advance. So, I would be surprised if anybody on the right is willing to come here and admit, that yes, on this issue, commentators like Crowder, Shapiro, Moore, Limbaugh, etc are liars.

And I separate here very clearly these commentators are the average Joe and Jane. I fully understand that the layperson is not reading scientific reports or studies. They should at least read the summaries, but I completely understand that they don't, and really don't have the time to do so. So, if they're getting information from these commentators, or friends on Facebook, or whatever, they can be misinformed or ill-informed. No problem. I do my very best to inform such people of the realities surrounding climate change.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 11-27-2019 at 08:07 AM.
  #3  
Old 11-27-2019, 08:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Yeah, just to clarify, this thread is not about nuclear power or the claims of whatever fringe leftist environmentalist you care to bring up. Please do not bring those subjects into the thread. This is about mainstream pundits broadly understood to be climate denialists, and whether their denialism is born out of ignorance or malice. My vote is on malice.
  #4  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:23 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,444
No, I don't think most climate change denialists are lying, and it's disappointing to see BPC using the shill gambit* to discredit them wholesale.

As with other forms of denialism (antivaccine ideologues come to mind) there's a certain percentage of such folk who are deliberately lying, sometimes as a defense mechanism against what they perceive as the Big Lie promulgated by their array of enemies. In the case of climate change, it's the intellectuals/scientists, alternative power interests and other bogeymen who are supposedly fueling the narrative to profit off climate change research.

A more prosaic and accurate explanation for much of their nonsense is lack of critical thinking skills. An example is dependence on a relatively tiny list of "experts" with whom they agree and whose opinions must be respected because, like, they're PhDs, man! (never mind that the vast majority of experts with relevant degrees and experience are squarely on the other side).

*If I had a dollar for every time I've been called a shill online (re vaccine and GMO debates) I could buy everyone who's posted in this thread a full-course meal at a Ruth Chris Steakhouse.**
**only valid as long as there are just a few posters in the thread. Eventually I would only be able to treat everyone to a Happy Meal.
  #5  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:30 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
I mean... They're saying things that are bafflingly wrong. When they cite sources they do so not just incorrectly, but in ways that directly contradict the source material. Many of them have this shown to them, then repeat the false statements anyways. They're also funded by a vast web of dark money sources with a very clear agenda to push - an agenda we now know they knew was based on flat-out falsehoods.

I don't think that's the same thing as calling a random person on a message board a shill or implying without basis that they're paid off.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #6  
Old 11-27-2019, 11:32 AM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,839
My favorite lie is that the Earth is actually getting cooler.

For "proof" they turned to charts showing the average temperature. Those showed a giant spike in 1998, a freakishly hot year. The next decade's temperatures continued the upward trend from previous years but didn't match 1998. QED.

DUMB. The last several years have all been much hotter than that freakishly high 1998. This chart shows the trend in all its messiness.

Yes, Jackmannii, this is partially a lack of critical thinking skills. That chart is not easy to understand. But the source of the problem is that people are loudly lying to them using short words. The recipients of the lies believe they in fact are using critical thinking skills and have chosen the right side.

In reality, one side has actual science, the other memes and bumper stickers. I know which one I support.
  #7  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:01 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
No, I don't think most climate change denialists are lying, and it's disappointing to see BPC using the shill gambit* to discredit them wholesale.

As with other forms of denialism (antivaccine ideologues come to mind) there's a certain percentage of such folk who are deliberately lying, sometimes as a defense mechanism against what they perceive as the Big Lie promulgated by their array of enemies. In the case of climate change, it's the intellectuals/scientists, alternative power interests and other bogeymen who are supposedly fueling the narrative to profit off climate change research.

A more prosaic and accurate explanation for much of their nonsense is lack of critical thinking skills. An example is dependence on a relatively tiny list of "experts" with whom they agree and whose opinions must be respected because, like, they're PhDs, man! (never mind that the vast majority of experts with relevant degrees and experience are squarely on the other side).
Oh the subject of famous people in political, news, and "news" careers, I don't believe it's credible to believe that they're merely suffering from a shortage of critical thinking skills. Their misinterperations of evidence are ongoing and can only be described as deliberately deceptive.

Yahoos on the street lack critical speaking skills. People with sponsors say what they're paid to.
  #8  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:18 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
No, I don't think most climate change denialists are lying, and it's disappointing to see BPC using the shill gambit* to discredit them wholesale.

As with other forms of denialism (antivaccine ideologues come to mind) there's a certain percentage of such folk who are deliberately lying, sometimes as a defense mechanism against what they perceive as the Big Lie promulgated by their array of enemies. In the case of climate change, it's the intellectuals/scientists, alternative power interests and other bogeymen who are supposedly fueling the narrative to profit off climate change research.
That's motivation. Creationism is a good analog to this debate. Some yahoo creationists (like the ones who say if we're descended from apes, how come there are still apes) do lack critical thinking skills, but the top ones don't. We know their motivation - religious faith - but that doesn't mean they aren't lying. It means they can justify lying to themselves.
Creationists do quote mining also. Are the ones who quote Darwin about the difficulty of explaining the evolution of the eye - but then don't quote him when he explains it - lying? I think so.
  #9  
Old 11-27-2019, 03:47 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
No, I don't think most climate change denialists are lying, and it's disappointing to see BPC using the shill gambit* to discredit them wholesale.

As with other forms of denialism (antivaccine ideologues come to mind) there's a certain percentage of such folk who are deliberately lying, sometimes as a defense mechanism against what they perceive as the Big Lie promulgated by their array of enemies. In the case of climate change, it's the intellectuals/scientists, alternative power interests and other bogeymen who are supposedly fueling the narrative to profit off climate change research.

A more prosaic and accurate explanation for much of their nonsense is lack of critical thinking skills. An example is dependence on a relatively tiny list of "experts" with whom they agree and whose opinions must be respected because, like, they're PhDs, man! (never mind that the vast majority of experts with relevant degrees and experience are squarely on the other side).
I think you have it the other way around. The big/primary/main personalities, the likes of Crowder, Shapiro, Limbaugh, etc., have staff and resources. They aren't making a mistake. They aren't failing to use critical thinking. They're purposefully looking for any weakness in the climate change science to attack it. They're doing this either for direct or indirect money (this gets a bit complex, so I'll come back to it if necessary, but in brief, people like Moore gets directly paid by the oil industry, while people like Crowder gets paid by convincing people that they're "in the know." He's satisfying an emotional need and gets them to buy his merchandise).

The smaller personalities are often simply reusing material from big personalities. E.g., small/medium channel YouTube content creators. They might be simply making a critical thinking mistake.

Numerically, it is probably accurate that there are more smaller personalities, than big personalities; however, the ones with the real impact are lying. The types of mistakes they are making are not possible if one is looking at the data, which we know they are because they often reference slices of it. Of course, it is possible that there is some small percentage for whom this is all just an honest mistake, and pure critical thinking, but that does not match the evidence for most of them.
  #10  
Old 11-27-2019, 05:59 PM
Mdcastle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,175
Usually the conversation with a leftist goes something like this:

"OK, so you believe climate change is real, now give me that nice juicy hamburger and have this disgusting vegan garbage. Move out of your house with a picket fance and live crammed into a tiny flat with no backyard and where you can hear all your neighbors bedroom activities. Smash that incandescent lightbulb and use those horrid LEDs. Give up that SUV and walk int the freezing cold and rain to the bus stop."

So "I don't believe it's real" shuts down that line of conversation faster than "I think it's real, but I think science will come to our rescue with carbon capture or sulfur injection, or I think it's real, but it's rolling it back isn't worth destroying 100 years of progress society has made because some bartender and a screechy kid say we need to".

So I'm sure a lot of deniers from the top of politics on down are actually liers.
  #11  
Old 11-27-2019, 06:18 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdcastle View Post
Usually the conversation with a leftist goes something like this:

"OK, so you believe climate change is real, now give me that nice juicy hamburger and have this disgusting vegan garbage. Move out of your house with a picket fance and live crammed into a tiny flat with no backyard and where you can hear all your neighbors bedroom activities. Smash that incandescent lightbulb and use those horrid LEDs. Give up that SUV and walk int the freezing cold and rain to the bus stop."
Literally no conversation with any leftist has ever gone like this.
  #12  
Old 11-27-2019, 06:39 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,784
I don't know if I'd agree with BPC's assessment of deliberate lying, so much as it is that many people have this filter in their mind that automatically inflates the validity of facts that they like, and deflates the validity of facts they don't like. Confirmation bias on steroids.

My highly-educated, good-at-math-and-all-kinds-of-things aunt is a............9/11 conspiracy theorist and Flat Earther. It baffles me that someone with such a high IQ could believe such things, but she does. Her process goes something like this: If she can think of even one thing that supports her argument, it's debate over, she wins. No matter if you bring up five or ten things that contradict her view, she'll cling to that one thing that, in her head, justifies her case.

Now, is she deliberately lying? I'd hesitate to put it that way. I think she genuinely, sincerely believes she is right, just like how a mentally ill person can genuinely believe that his unfounded beliefs are correct. I'd think the same of many climate-change denialist pundits - they may genuinely believe that climate change is a hoax, due to latching on to a few "facts" that they like, and mentally discarding all the facts they don't like. It can be such a natural process of discarding unwanted facts, in fact, that they might not even themselves be aware that they're thinking this way.
  #13  
Old 11-27-2019, 08:07 PM
Personal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdcastle View Post
Usually the conversation with a leftist goes something like this:

"OK, so you believe climate change is real, now give me that nice juicy hamburger and have this disgusting vegan garbage. Move out of your house with a picket fance and live crammed into a tiny flat with no backyard and where you can hear all your neighbors bedroom activities. Smash that incandescent lightbulb and use those horrid LEDs. Give up that SUV and walk int the freezing cold and rain to the bus stop."

So "I don't believe it's real" shuts down that line of conversation faster than "I think it's real, but I think science will come to our rescue with carbon capture or sulfur injection, or I think it's real, but it's rolling it back isn't worth destroying 100 years of progress society has made because some bartender and a screechy kid say we need to".

So I'm sure a lot of deniers from the top of politics on down are actually liers.
I don't understand the point(s) you're trying to make. Are you saying that deniers aren't really deniers? That they say they're deniers, but they are really believers and they think that science/technology will come to the rescue?
  #14  
Old 11-27-2019, 09:14 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Personal View Post
I don't understand the point(s) you're trying to make. Are you saying that deniers aren't really deniers? That they say they're deniers, but they are really believers and they think that science/technology will come to the rescue?
I think his point is that many climate-change activists balk at taking extreme personal action or sacrifice for their cause.
  #15  
Old 11-27-2019, 09:18 PM
Mdcastle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,175
Yes, pretty much. "I don't believe it" sounds better than "I believe it but don't want to be forced to have live like a European" or is shorter than explaining all the promising research on a technological solution rather than a lifestyle devastating solution.
  #16  
Old 11-27-2019, 10:04 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,042
Folks like, say, Marc Morano? I doubt he knows enough or cares enough to have a sincere opinion one way or the other on the reality of climate change. What he wants is to make money and be influential, and his lifelong working environment has been right-wing propaganda. Climate denial is a lucrative game to him, and I doubt that evaluating its scientific validity even rates on his list of priorities.

I think the OP's rather optimistically naive about the cognitive clarity of even the professional science deniers. In order to "know that they are lying", they'd first have to be remotely interested in the issue of what the truth is and what their ethical responsibilities to the truth are. I see zero evidence that they care about such things.
  #17  
Old 11-27-2019, 10:09 PM
Personal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think his point is that many climate-change activists balk at taking extreme personal action or sacrifice for their cause.
So cowards with no sense of personal responsibility.
  #18  
Old 11-29-2019, 12:52 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Personal View Post
So cowards with no sense of personal responsibility.
Well, I think a lot of climate denialists use that attitude towards climate activists as a kind of ass-covering for their own denialism. "Hey, if this person who supposedly believes that the earth is in a dire environmental crisis won't immediately subject themselves to extreme austerity in order to minimize their own contribution to the crisis, how can they expect me to take them seriously?"

The fact is, of course, that the climate crisis won't be solved by individuals' personal lifestyle choices. To a large extent, also of course, the crisis is no longer solvable at all: we're going to be dealing with the impacts of significant climate change for decades and centuries even if we cease all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions tomorrow. But to the extent that we can and will eventually resolve the crisis, it will happen via large-scale systemic change brought about by concerted national and international regulation to redirect market forces away from emissions-heavy activities. Not via a few dozen or thousand activists swearing off air travel and refusing to use electric lights, or whatever the denialist ignoramuses think they ought to be doing to adequately demonstrate their bona fides.

Last edited by Kimstu; 11-29-2019 at 12:54 AM.
  #19  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:06 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,419
Just curious, what can you cite in the last, say, 2 years from Ben Shapiro that suggests he's lying about climate change? He's come around slower than many, but AFAIK he does not deny that climate change exists and that humans contribute to it.

Last edited by Ashtura; 11-29-2019 at 09:07 AM.
  #20  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:26 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, I think a lot of climate denialists use that attitude towards climate activists as a kind of ass-covering for their own denialism. "Hey, if this person who supposedly believes that the earth is in a dire environmental crisis won't immediately subject themselves to extreme austerity in order to minimize their own contribution to the crisis, how can they expect me to take them seriously?"
And those few people who do do that, they get dismissed and laughed at: "they can do what they want, but am I gonna live like those loons? Hell no! And why should I trust such a wackadoodle hippie anyway?"
  #21  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:43 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Just curious, what can you cite in the last, say, 2 years from Ben Shapiro that suggests he's lying about climate change? He's come around slower than many, but AFAIK he does not deny that climate change exists and that humans contribute to it.
I don't follow Ben Shapiro for a variety of reasons, so I just watched a couple of his most recent talks. I'd be willing to downgrade Shapiro from an obvious liar to possibly misinformed. He uses his typical debating strategy, which is a good one having been in debates clubs myself, of focusing on very particular facts, and pretending that these are the only facts that matter. For example, he loves to focus on rising sea levels, and says there's an easy solution. People will just move. He mocks rising sea levels to some degree as saying it won't be like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", yeah well no kidding, nobody is seriously saying it would be (Shapiro LOVES strawman arguments). He ignores the multitude of other issues surrounding climate change. Now, it could be he's unaware of them, or he could be aware of them and ignores them because they're an inconvenient truth. He seems to be of the view that the damage won't be that bad. Again, most studies disagree with him. So is he unaware of them? Or is he aware of the additional facts and lying (in some sense by omission)? I don't know what is in his heart, but I will say that while he's clearly leaving out a lot of elements, but he's isn't grossly misrepresenting/twisting facts to his favour. My gut tells me that he's just not looking into that deeply, and I will say that if he wants to take this public position with such a large audience, and speak on climate change in a factual way he has a moral obligation to be well-informed. Otherwise, in my opinion, he should say "This isn't something I've looked into very deeply, so I'll leave that to people better informed."

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 11-29-2019 at 09:45 AM.
  #22  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:39 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 666
I'll go with "sociopaths paid to lie" for denial propagandists. The money's good; they probably won't be charged with "crimes against humanity" during their lifetimes; and they don't really like their grandkids much. Nice and easy.
  #23  
Old 12-04-2019, 08:36 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
I'll go with "sociopaths paid to lie" for denial propagandists. The money's good; they probably won't be charged with "crimes against humanity" during their lifetimes; and they don't really like their grandkids much. Nice and easy.
Or they figure that by the time their sociopathic behavior really catches up with them, they'll be dead and their kids will be rich. It's not unreasonable to bet on the chances of rich people being able to lead essentially normal and comfortable lives in the less severely affected habitable zones of a significantly warmed world.

Of course, there will be millions and millions of non-rich people whose chances of a normal and comfortable life in such circumstances will be drastically reduced. But you can't expect lying sociopaths to care about them.
  #24  
Old 12-04-2019, 08:55 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,704
Climate deniers are more bullshitters than liars, as described in Frankfurt's treatise "On Bullshit and Lying" (abstract). Main explanatory bullet points being:
  • Bullshitters do not consciously deceive.
  • Bullshitters just don’t know or care about the truth.
  • Bullshitters ignore or reject the distinction between truth and falsity altogether.
I don't think that Rush Limbaugh (for example) knows what the truth is, nor is he trying to hide it or delude people from it. He doesn't care what the truth is. His goal is to get you to buy what he's selling. His main tool is convincing you that that truth and falsehoods are matters of taste or partisan affiliation. Once you've bought that, he owns your brain.
  #25  
Old 12-05-2019, 09:50 AM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 154
I've just read a book by Morano, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. Not having really read about this subject before, I figured he was being forthright. I am sure some truly believe there is no danger in climate change, but why would ones who do misrepresent?
Is it really that dire? Give me a good title to look for in my library system.
__________________
Go Ravens!
  #26  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:33 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
I've just read a book by Morano, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. Not having really read about this subject before, I figured he was being forthright. I am sure some truly believe there is no danger in climate change, but why would ones who do misrepresent?
Is it really that dire? Give me a good title to look for in my library system.
We have an ongoing thread about the dire nature of climate change. And yes, it is very dire.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=885666

Marc Morano doesn't seem like a particularly good source. Especially since he, at a minimum, lied about the CRU email controversy ("ClimateGate"). He may have lied about other things as well since he seems to like cherry-picking from scientific studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

The best reading materials are the IPCC reports. Since it is very long, I would suggest at least reading the summaries.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 12-05-2019 at 10:34 AM.
  #27  
Old 12-05-2019, 11:58 AM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,839
You might be better off reading RationalWiki on Morano.

Or RationalWiki on just about anything.
  #28  
Old 12-05-2019, 12:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
I've just read a book by Morano, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. Not having really read about this subject before, I figured he was being forthright. I am sure some truly believe there is no danger in climate change, but why would ones who do misrepresent?
Is it really that dire? Give me a good title to look for in my library system.
I prefer to look at the claims first, and just by looking at the first one he makes in the first chapter:

Quote:
Did you know?

-The purported 97 percent scientific consensus on climate change was “pulled from thin air”
That was debunked back in 2014:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ming-consensus
Quote:
Pulled from thin air

As the above figure illustrates, by making this mistake, Tol effectively conjured approximately 300 papers rejecting or minimizing human-caused global warming out of thin air, with no evidence that those papers exist in reality. As a result, his consensus estimate falls apart under cursory examination. Ironically, when discussing our study in a US congressional hearing last week, Tol claimed,

"...as far as I can see, this estimate just crumbles when you touch it ... this 97% is essentially pulled from thin air."

When our team corrected for Tol's error, accounting for the ways in which the reconciliation process actually changed the ratings for each category, we found a slight increase in the consensus, from an initial 97.1% to a corrected 97.2%. Accounting for the uncertainties involved, we ultimately found the consensus is robust at 97 ± 1%.

It's also important to remember that our finding of 97 ± 1% consensus in climate research abstracts is consistent with the scientist author paper self-ratings in our study (97.2%), Doran & Zimmerman's 2009 study (97%), the Anderegg et al. 2010 study (97.5%), Oreskes' 2004 study (zero abstracts rejecting human-caused global warming in a sample of 928 papers), 80 National Academies of Science and dozens of scientific organizations from around the world endorsing the consensus (none rejecting it). And of course Richard Tol acknowledges it,

"Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role."

and

"The consensus is of course in the high nineties"

This is an important point, because a new George Mason University report finds that only 12% of Americans are aware that more than 90% of climate scientists have concluded humans are causing global warming. Ironically, even Tol's flawed critique finds the consensus is higher than 88% of Americans believe.
As Morano makes a big deal of this item, one has to conclude that he is not only politically incorrect, but completely incorrect.

After establishing that a messenger is pulling our leg, then it is ok to shot him down.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Marc_Morano
Quote:
Morano was a journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the conservative Media Research Center. CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election[3] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."[4]
Really, why is that an "expert" on Vietnam military things is deemed now to be an expert now on climate change issues? What is clear is that he is an expert alright, but an expert on misleading people.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 12-05-2019 at 12:50 PM.
  #29  
Old 12-05-2019, 04:44 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,558
Get a brain, Morano!
  #30  
Old Yesterday, 09:34 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Get a brain, Morano!
I think it was author Robert Bloch who said, "I have the brain of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk." Merely "getting" a brain isn't enough. Preservation is also important. Formaldehyde? Just don't take a jar labeled "bad brain". Only tragedy can follow.

Note that a brain pickled AFTER bottling is likely sounder than one previously pickled. If pickled while still alive, a brain may slip into error, especially about climate change. Like mistaking weather for climate. Snowfall doesn't debunk global warming.

How many deniers live on low-lying islands?
  #31  
Old Today, 01:06 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 154
The book claims any scientists who disagree are branded heretics and not reported. Also that Al Gore uses 900 times more electricity than a family in Uganda for a year and the "powers that be" want to keep poor people in nations like that poor.
__________________
Go Ravens!
  #32  
Old Today, 02:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
The book claims any scientists who disagree are branded heretics and not reported.
What Morano said was false.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate...ke-galileo.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Also that Al Gore uses 900 times more electricity than a family in Uganda for a year and the "powers that be" want to keep poor people in nations like that poor.
This shows that he is missing the point that Al Gore makes about being carbon neutral, that is that at the same time he could be using that electricity he is actually also using energy sources that pollute less or are green.

https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com...rbon-footprint
Quote:
Gregory Thomas’s company, Performance Systems Development in Ithaca, NY, was brought in afterward to analyze the results, and Thomas said this about the project: “The retrofit was an electrification of a large home that also serves as an office for the former Vice President’s staff. There were natural gas boilers for heating and hot water and after the retrofit there was only cooking gas. All off-site electricity was purchased from renewable sources, no offsets for the electricity. All said and done, the carbon footprint on this house is really low.”

Gore’s communications director told the New Republic, “Vice President Gore leads a carbon-neutral life by purchasing green energy, reducing carbon impacts, and offsetting any emissions that cannot be avoided, all within the constraints of an economy that still relies too heavily on dirty fossil fuels.”

So, two things need to be pointed out. Energy use isn’t the same as carbon footprint. Yeah, we can argue about the significance of purchasing renewable energy that comes in through the same wires as the dirtiest coal-fired electricity, but we’ll save that for the comments below or another article. The other thing is that Gore’s house isn’t just a residence. He’s running an office with staff out of that building as well.
The truth about Al Gore’s carbon footprint

All this talk about Al Gore’s personal carbon footprint is meant to do one thing: distract. It’s a red herring. The New Republic makes the case that Al Gore’s carbon footprint doesn’t matter in an article they published last week. They’ve said it much more eloquently and completely than I’ll do here, so you really should read their piece. In short, the message put out by Al Gore and others climate change leaders is that individual actions can help on a small scale, but it’s the large scale carbon emissions that are the key.
Just like in the case of the consensus, Morano goes for discredited sources. Really, that book is only good as a doorstep.

Last edited by GIGObuster; Today at 02:10 PM.
  #33  
Old Today, 03:44 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
The book claims any scientists who disagree are branded heretics and not reported.
Indeed. Much like any scientist who disagrees with the existence of gravity is branded a heretic and not reported.

Quote:
Also that Al Gore uses 900 times more electricity than a family in Uganda for a year
"You protest the state of society, and yet you live in society. How hypocritical of you !"
  #34  
Old Today, 04:02 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
The book claims any scientists who disagree are branded heretics and not reported.
When you suggest that we don't hear from many "heretics" because they're being covered up, that is classic conspiracy theory thinking. The likeliest reason is that there just aren't many.

To test that theory, observe that the fossil fuel industry happily gives a loud platform to any scientist that will say what they want. Also observe that you are reading a book reporting the "heretics".
  #35  
Old Today, 05:06 PM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
The book claims... that Al Gore uses 900 times more electricity than a family in Uganda for a year and the "powers that be" want to keep poor people in nations like that poor.
If I may tangent on that: IMHO it's 1st-world tourists of many political aspects who want exotic, quaint, handcrafting, impoverished ethnics to remain low-paid, exotic folk crafting cheap goodies to take back home, with the exotic locale staying cheap too. An expat can vacation or live very well in countries facing economic collapse.

Back to topic. Major polluters and their minions lie about product danger; truth shall not deter their survival instinct. Are we surprised? A certain biblical verse should accurately translate as, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Who takes that seriously?
  #36  
Old Today, 09:32 PM
ralfy's Avatar
ralfy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 691
From 2012:

"Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution"
__________________
We few, we happy few, we band of chipmunks....
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017