Politics of Global Warming

[Tyger]

Friends of Science | The Myths and Facts of Global Warming

The link is a good example of the politics of denial. The website is of 'Friends of Science' who are funded by the Oil Industry and is associated with Barry Cooper. [see below]

LINK: Friends of Science - SourceWatch

TEXT: "The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable."

"In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding.

"In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change" and had returned unspent grant money on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement. As a consequence, the University advised FoS "that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf", according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007. On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that U of C officials had shut down Cooper's "'Research on Climate Change' trust account", and were about to advise Elections Canada of the University's ongoing review of the matter.

"A few days later, CanWest reported that the targeting of the FoS radio ad campaign to key Ontario ridings was directed by then FoS media contact Morten Paulsen (later a vice-president at Fleishman-Hillard), who also served as volunteer spokesperson for the Stephen Harper led Conservative Party of Canadaduring the election.

"A report on various allegations concerning Barry Cooper's research accounts was issued by the University auditor on April 14, 2008, with some censored passages released in July. The report examined allegations that research funds had been used as a conduit to fund Friends of Science projects, that funds had been used to support third-party election advertising, and that the funded projects did not constitute legitimate research or education. Although the report did not arrive at any definitive conclusions on the allegations, it did note that Barry Cooper (referred to as the "researcher" in the report) overstepped his signing authority in approving payments of $170,000 of payments to APCO Worldwide, $54,000 to Morten Paulsen Consulting, and $43,000 to Paulsen's current employer, PR and lobbying firm Fleishman-Hillard. In an accompanying press release, the University noted that it had "advised Elections Canada and Canada Revenue Agency of its concerns regarding the accounts Friends of Science and the ongoing auditor’s review."

"On September 23, 2008, CanWest reported that Elections Canada had completed a preliminary assessment into the 2006 Ontario radio ad campaign and would not press charges against FoS for failing to register as a third-party election advertiser." [Article continues in LINK]​

 

[Tyger]

Read internal memos and interviews with experts, including former Exxon Mobil employees, in part two of the Los Angeles Times investigation: "In an internal draft memo from August 1988 titled 'The Greenhouse Effect,' a company public affairs manager laid out what he called the 'Exxon Position.' Toward the end of the document, after an analysis that noted scientific consensus on the role fossil fuels play in global warming, he wrote that the company should 'Emphasize the uncertainty.'”

How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research
By KATIE JENNINGS, DINO GRANDONI AND SUSANNE RUST - OCT. 23, 2015
LINK: http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/

TEXT: "Throughout much of the 1980s, Exxon earned a public reputation as a pioneer in climate change research. It sponsored workshops, funded academic research and conducted its own high-tech experiments exploring the science behind global warming. But by 1990, the company, in public, took a different posture. While still funding select research, it poured millions into a campaign that questioned climate change. Over the next 15 years, it took out prominent ads in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, contending climate change science was murky and uncertain. And it argued regulations aimed at curbing global warming were ill-considered and premature.

"How did one of the world’s largest oil companies, a leader in climate research, become one of its biggest public skeptics? The answer, gleaned from a trove of archived company documents and the recollections of former employees, is that Exxon, now known as Exxon Mobil, feared a growing public consensus would lead to financially burdensome policies. Duane LeVine, Exxon’s manager of science and strategy development, gave a primer to the company’s board of directors in 1989, noting that scientists generally agreed gases released by burning fossil fuels could raise global temperatures significantly by the middle of the 21st century — between 2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit — causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise, “with generally negative consequences.” But he also made it clear the company was facing another threat as well — from public policymakers. “Arguments that we can’t tolerate delay and must act now can lead to irreversible and costly Draconian steps,” LeVine said.

"Heat waves and drought had scorched North America in 1988, fueling public concern that the planet was warming. Top government scientists testified in Congress that year, pushing for action. Lawmakers at home and abroad began calling for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels — the lifeblood of Exxon’s business. And, in 1988, the United Nations established a panel of scientists to study the issue and make policy recommendations. Brian Flannery, Exxon’s longtime in-house climate expert, outlined the threat in a note to his colleagues in an internal company newsletter in 1989.

"Government and regulatory efforts to reduce the risk of climate change, Flannery wrote, would “alter profoundly the strategic direction of the energy industry.” And he warned that the impact on the company from those efforts “will come sooner … than from climate change itself.” The company’s shift — from embracing the science of climate change to publicly questioning it — emerged from interviews with former and current Exxon Mobil employees, and a review of internal company documents by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times. The documents were obtained from the Exxon Mobil Historical Collection at the University of Texas at Austin’s Briscoe Center for American History. (Some of those documents have also been the subject of recent reports by InsideClimate News.)

"In a recent interview, Flannery said the company was understandably concerned in the 1980s that government regulations being proposed were simplistic and drastic. “I followed the climate negotiations, and they’d say things like, ‘We should reduce our emissions of CO2 by 10% by 1990.’ And you’re sitting there, and you say, ‘You guys haven’t a clue’” how difficult and disruptive that would be to global industry and the average consumer, he said. “This isn’t like making low-fat yogurt,” he said.

"In an internal draft memo from August 1988 titled “The Greenhouse Effect,” a company public affairs manager laid out what he called the “Exxon Position.” Toward the end of the document, after an analysis that noted scientific consensus on the role fossil fuels play in global warming, he wrote that the company should “Emphasize the uncertainty.” In 1989, Exxon scientists and managers began briefing employees at all levels of the company on the policy implications of climate change. LeVine made his presentation to the Exxon board as part of that effort, describing the known science and outlining the company’s position.

"Other documents in the archives indicate Exxon scientists had been researching the topic for more than a decade — outfitting an oil tanker with carbon dioxide detectors and analyzers and building models to project how a doubling of the gas in the atmosphere would affect global temperatures. “Data confirm that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere,” LeVine told the board, according to a copy of his presentation in the Exxon Mobil archive. “Fossil fuels contribute most of the CO2.” LeVine argued that the growing push by lawmakers to address the problem was “rooted in the evolution of the just-completed Montreal Protocol.”

"Two years earlier, the Montreal Protocol, which was signed by the United States and other countries and went intro effect in 1989, had called for phasing out chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, a group of chemicals responsible for thinning the ozone layer, which protects Earth from harmful solar radiation. LeVine pointed out that CFCs had been increasing in the atmosphere, just as carbon dioxide levels were increasing. And just as in the case of greenhouse gases, scientific models predicted that CFCs could have serious future environmental effects. After years of resistance, chemical companies like DuPont were forced to develop alternatives to CFCs.

"CFCs might never have been regulated, LeVine noted, had it not been for one crucial event: the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica. That discovery, he said, was just the evidence environmentalists needed to rally the public. The greenhouse gas issue, LeVine explained, had now reached a similar “critical event”: the hot and dry summer of 1988, which caused one of the worst droughts in U.S. history. At the time, a growing number of experts were “talking about what climate change could mean in the near-term and long-term future,” recalled Joseph Carlson, a now-retired public affairs manager for Exxon who helped draft the company’s position. That summer, James Hansen, then a NASA climate scientist, told Congress global warming had already begun. His testimony, enhanced by the sweltering temperatures outside, prompted many Americans to begin taking the threat of a hotter planet seriously. Time magazine even put the Earth on its cover as “Planet of the Year.”

"Climate scientists, then and now, note that isolated heat waves and droughts are not necessarily the direct result of planetary warming. But, coming in the midst of that debate, that heat wave, which caused more than 5,000 deaths in the United States and cost nearly $40 billion, had a big impact. So LeVine laid out a plan for the “Exxon Position”: In order to stop the momentum behind the issue, LeVine said Exxon should emphasize that doubt. Tell the public that more science is needed before regulatory action is taken, he argued, and emphasize the “costs and economics” of restricting carbon dioxide emissions.

"Banning CFCs “pales by comparison to the difficulties of applying similar approaches” to carbon dioxide, an unavoidable byproduct of burning fossil fuels, which produce most of the world’s electricity, he said. The company recently declined to comment on the 1989 board meeting. LeVine declined to comment for this story as well. Of the six living members of that board of directors, one declined to comment and five could not be reached. Alan Jeffers, an Exxon Mobil spokesman, said: “Exxon Mobil has always advocated for good public policy that is based on sound science” and the archived documents reflect “a balanced approach to communicating the risk of climate change.” And he provided a list of more than 50 peer-reviewed publications showing the company continued investigating climate change science throughout the 1990s and 2000s.

"By the early 1990s, Exxon began putting its new public relations strategy into practice. At the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting in 1990, the board of directors denounced a dissident shareholder proposal that called for Exxon to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, citing “great scientific uncertainties” about the environmental effects of global climate change. The board also criticized “drastic and precipitant proposals,” like those being considered by the United Nations. In 1992, Exxon joined the Global Climate Coalition, an association of companies from industries linked to fossil fuels, which vigorously fought potential climate change regulations by emphasizing scientific uncertainty and underscoring the negative economic impact of such laws on consumers.

"From 1998 to 2005, Exxon contributed almost $16 million to at least 43 organizations to wage a campaign raising questions about climate change, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental activist group. Greenpeace has estimated that Exxon spent more than $30 million in that effort. Exxon’s executives also publicly questioned climate change science. In 1997, Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, Lee Raymond, derided potential regulations on carbon emissions at a meeting of the World Petroleum Council in Beijing. “Many people — politicians and the public alike — believe that global warming is a rock-solid certainty,” Raymond said. “But it's not.”

"In the U.S., Exxon took out newspaper ads disparaging federal research into the effect of climate change on different areas of the U.S. “Today’s global models simply don’t work at a regional level,” read an Exxon Mobil ad in an August 2000 edition of the Washington Post. It went on: “That is why we support emphasis on further climate research.” In 1997, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify a U.N. treaty committing states to reduce greenhouse gases because restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions “could result in serious harm to the United States economy” — an argument Exxon used repeatedly in its public-relations campaign.

"Today, the effect of climate change is widely accepted. Average global temperatures have risen approximately 1.5 degrees since 1880, and the sea level has risen at a rate of 0.06 of an inch per year and is accelerating. Moreover, Arctic sea ice coverage is shrinking so drastically that last August, National Geographic had to redraw its atlas maps. In 2007, the company, for the first time since the early 1980s, publicly conceded that climate change was occurring and that it was in large part the result of the burning of fossil fuels. “There was a fork in the road. They had the opportunity to make a decision to go one way or the other way,” said Martin Hoffert, an Exxon consultant in the 1980s and professor emeritus of physics at New York University. “If Exxon had listened to its scientists and endorsed our research — and not started that campaign — it would have had, in my opinion, an enormous impact.” "

Amy Lieberman, Sara Jerving and Masako Melissa Hirsch contributed to this report.​

 

[Tyger]

Sanders Calls for Probe into Exxon Mobil Claims on Climate Change
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
LINK: Sanders Calls for Probe into Exxon Mobil Claims on Climate Change

TEXT: "WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today asked the Department of Justice to investigate potential fraud by Exxon Mobil Corp. over conflicts in what it knew and what it told the public and shareholders about the cause of climate change.

"In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Sanders asked for a probe into what he called a “potential instance of corporate fraud” by the oil giant. “Exxon Mobil knew the truth about fossil fuels and climate change and lied to protect their business model at the expense of the planet,” Sanders said. He likened Exxon Mobil’s conduct to claims by the tobacco industry about the health risks associated with smoking.

"In his letter, Sanders cited an investigation by Inside Climate News, the non-profit, non-partisan news organization, which suggested that Exxon Mobil scientists conducted extensive research on climate change as early as 1977. The company’s scientists reportedly found that climate change is real and caused partly by carbon pollution from petroleum products. Nevertheless, the world’s fourth largest oil company participated in an industry-wide public relations campaign which cast doubt about the emerging scientific consensus on global warming. Since 1998, Exxon Mobil pumped $31 million into think tanks and organizations that tried to sow doubts about mainstream climate science. “These reports, if true, raise serious allegations of a misinformation campaign that may have caused public harm similar to the tobacco industry’s actions – conduct that led to federal racketeering convictions,” Sanders wrote in the letter to the nation’s top law enforcement official."​

" “Based on available public information, it appears that Exxon knew its product was causing harm to the public, and spent millions of dollars to obfuscate the facts in the public discourse. The information that has come to light about Exxon’s past activities raises potentially serious concerns that should be investigated,” Sanders told the attorney general.

"To read Sanders’ letter to the attorney general, click here.

"To read the Exxon Mobil scientists’ memos obtained by Inside Climate News, click here."
​

Bernie Sanders on Climate Change and Exxon - All In with Chris Hayes - 2015-10-21 (Full HD - 1080p)

TEXT: "Published on Oct 21, 2015: This is Bernie Sanders on All In with Chris Hayes discussing Exxon's cover-up of it's knowledge that CO2 emissions were causing serious climate change according to its own scientists. They knew this as far back as the 1970's. They subsequently began setting up cynically named *PUBLIC INTEREST* committees and scientific think tanks of *CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS*."

 

[Tyger]

What Exxon Knew About Climate Change - SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 BY BILL MCKIBBEN
LINK: What Exxon Knew About Climate Change - The New Yorker

 

[Tyger]

Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s — and Denied It
October 21, 2015 by Bill McKibben
LINK: Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s — and Denied It | BillMoyers.com

 

[Tyger]

What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic
By SARA JERVING, KATIE JENNINGS, MASAKO MELISSA HIRSCH AND SUSANNE RUST
OCT. 9, 2015
LINK: http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I used to believe in Global Warming in the way it is portrayed nowadays. I also had a friend who also posted walls of text and he eventually convinced me it was all bullshit.

The earth is cyclical and weather, as everything else cycles and is transient across its surface.

That's really the whole thing summed up in one sentence.

 

[Tyger]

I used to believe in Global Warming in the way it is portrayed nowadays. I also had a friend who also posted walls of text and he eventually convinced me it was all bullshit.

Read the science - directly - not interpreted. It's pretty persuasive. Far from BS.

The earth is cyclical and weather, as everything else cycles and is transient across its surface.

Your statement as such is accurate, but is not relevant to Climate Change or the issue of CO2. Weather is cyclic and local. Climate is across longer arches of time. The impact of CO2 - and the origin of the increased CO2 - is science fact.

You are dismissing the science, I wonder why? Do you dismiss the science that brings you your iPad, or your cell phone, or your television? How about the science of dentistry? Pick a science - do you dismiss the science of nuclear energy? of GMO's? of x-rays? Do you dismiss the science of space craft? of the space station? of the Hubble Telescope? The same science that brought you all the foregoing, is bringing you the news of Climate Change and CO2 - and that you dismiss. Interesting choice.

That's really the whole thing summed up in one sentence.

Far from being summed up in a sentence about weather being cyclic. What you prove is how successful has been the disinformation campaign the oil companies set in motion in the 1990's. Very sad.

 

[Tyger]

‘We Need an Energy Miracle’: Bill Gates has committed his fortune to moving the world beyond fossil fuels and mitigating climate change. JAMES BENNET - NOVEMBER 2015 ISSUE
LINK: Bill Gates: ‘We Need an Energy Miracle’

 

[Tyger]

The Plan to Save the World: What success at the Paris climate conference looks like.
October 27, 2015 BY REBECCA LEBER
LINK: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123223/plan-save-world?mod=e2this
TEXT: "Global leaders don't have to convince the world that renewable energy is the future. They just need to hasten that future along."

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Not long ago there were papers and papers of well written scientific research discrediting the idea of human contribution to climate change (as it isn't global warming.) Those vanished in the past couple of years. Interestingly, not too long ago, many scientists (some anonymously) claimed that they have recently "changed their views on scientific topics for non scientific reasons." I wonder what topic is at the forefront of such a claim. Follow the funding...

 

[aNorthernSoul]

You know, the superstar "scientist" Bill Nye had a children show, but this guy calculated the number of atoms in the sun at age five... and HE thinks there are serious flaws in global warming logic and/or "science."


Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The 'Wrong Side' On Climate Change

 

[Tyger]

Activism on-line to place Exxon under investigation.

Investigate Exxon: Earlier this month, reports revealed that Exxon has known about the threat of climate change since the 1970s and 80s.
LINK: Investigate Exxon.

TEXT: "That's right: decades before climate change became a hotly debated political issue, the biggest oil company in the world was doing cutting-edge research into just what was causing it and how dangerous it might be. Exxon's own scientists warned the company that burning fossil fuels was "potentially catastrophic" and might pose an existential threat to humanity.

"But Exxon chose to protect their profits over the planet, and proceeded to cover up their findings for nearly forty years. They hid the work of their own scientists, while financing an elaborate network of climate-denial think tanks, organizations, and politicians.

"Decades later, we're in the midst of a rapidly-unraveling crisis -- one that we could have been well on our way toward solving, had we acted muchsooner.

"We're not surprised that Exxon lied about climate change. We're not even surprised they lied for so long. What's dismaying is that they just might get away with it.

"But with a landmark UN summit coming up in Paris in just a little over a month, activists, organizations, journalists, and even politicians are calling for an investigation by the Department of Justice.

"If we know the truth about how fossil fuel companies like Exxon really operate, then we can fight them better. It's not too late to do that."​

 

[Tyger]

Exxon Lied and the Planet is Dying...

TEXT: "Published on Oct 22, 2015: Kris Ullman, Conservative Commentator & Activist & Chuck Rocha, Solidarity Strategies & Scott Greer, The Daily Caller all join Thom Hartmann. Exxon Lied at the expense of the planet."

 

[Tyger]

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer and a science educator.

You know, the superstar "scientist" Bill Nye had a children show, but this guy calculated the number of atoms in the sun at age five... and HE thinks there are serious flaws in global warming logic and/or "science."

Bill Nye to Climate Change Deniers: You Can’t Ignore Facts Forever

TEXT: "Published on Aug 7, 2014: Bill Nye (The Science Guy!) explains that climate change deniers and other anti-scientists are entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't mean they get a seat at the table with the grown-ups. Bill is the CEO of the Planetary Society (Homepage)."

Transcript -

David Gregory:
"You’ve heard the President in drought-stricken California saying that these weather emergencies in effect, are creating the conditions that the government has to act."

Marsha Blackburn:
"David, I think that what it brings to mind is how we utilize the information that we have, and we all know. And I think that Bill would probably agree with this; neither he nor I are a climate scientist. He is an engineer and an actor, I am a member of Congress, and what we have to do is look at the information that we get from climate scientists. As you said..."

Bill Nye:
"So she did something, which is very common in the climate denier community or whatever you would call it, is to talk about credentials. So, Marsha Blackburn, Representative in the US Congress from Tennessee said well I am a congresswoman and Bill you're just a mechanical engineer so you're not really a climate scientist. And what I would say is what we're talking about in this level of climate science is you don't need to be a full-time climate scientists to understand it. Furthermore, as far as my credentials everybody, I'm a mechanical engineer. I took a lot of physics. All I did was take physics, physics, physics, physics. And when you're done with formal physics then you take mechanical engineering, which is just applied physics. I get it. I can understand what's going on. We're putting carbon dioxide in the air at a prodigious rate and the world is getting warmer and you can know this by looking at the neutrons in the ice. You can know this by looking at the pollen grains per cubic centimeter in the sediment of ponds. You can know this by looking carefully at the rings on trees during warm seasons, wet seasons, cold seasons, dry seasons, and you can work your way back and figure out that the earth is getting warmer faster than has ever gotten before.

"And that's the problem. It's not that the world hasn't had more carbon dioxide, it's not the world hasn't been warmer. The problem is the speed at which things are changing. We are inducing a sixth mass extinction event kind of by accident and we don't want to be the extinctee, if I may coin this noun. So, I mean as far as Miss Blackburn, sounded like she had been coached on denial bullet points or talking points. And I very much enjoy taking those people on, but meanwhile it breaks my heart because we got work to do. And the fossil fuel industry has really gotten in their ears and it's really troublesome. We're the world's most technically advanced country, or if the U.S. isn't the most technically advanced it's certainly in the top ten. I mean you could say Japan, New Zealand are very sophisticated societies. But the U.S. is where iPhone's are invented, what have you, the Internet; it's still a significant place. And so to have a generation of science students being brought up without awareness of climate change is just a formula for disaster. I mean this is, everybody kinda knows this.

"So, I think, as an observer, and I may be wrong as I like to say, you may be right, as an observer it looks like the U.S.'s strength is its weakness. So people came here from all over the world for freedom to think and act the way they wanted, especially freedom of religion. So, we ended up with both the people who framed the Constitution, which is a fabulous thing, and people who asserted that the garden of Eden was in Missouri. And there's no police for that sort of thing. You're allowed to believe whatever you want. It's great. But with that was this, for them, and I emphasize them, the other side, consequence of that was you could also ignore facts of science for a while and now it’s coming to a head. But man it's really divisive, isn't it? It's really something.

"That living things change from generation to generation through a process that Darwin and Wallace, Alfred Wallace called natural selection or descent with modification. Those are true things. Those are facts. Tectonic plates move and that's a fact and the world is getting warmer because of human activity. That's a fact. If you had somebody who really strongly believed the earth was flat, you wouldn't have to have that person on a television show with the people who believe the earth is round."[Transcript truncated]​

 

[Tyger]

The denier stuff is wound up with right-wing religious stances - hence the intensity, and blind intensity at that, of the denier arguments. It's all very far from reason, let alone any semblance of science.

Right-Wingers Think Sanders’ Popularity Signifies End Times ~ October 22, 2015
LINK: Right-Wingers Think Sanders' Popularity Signifies End Times -
TEXT: "On TruNews last week, host Rick Wiles brought on Cliff Harris, a widely-known climate change denier. During their discussion, the two conservative whackos determined that Bernie Sanders’ popularity is a definite sign of the end times.

"As Right Wing Watch reports:

Wiles warned that leaders like Pope Francis, Al Gore and Bernie Sanders are part of a plan to “use global warming to impose global socialism” during which they will “take control of property, eliminate private property rights, take control of natural resources.” Wiles said the purpose of this plan is to impose “a centralized global government controlling the activies of every human being on the planet. That’s what Al Gore and all those socialists are after, and they’re using the climate as the justification.”

Wiles also proposed this is a sign of the second coming of Christ, “this is evidence of Jesus Christ coming back.” …
​

"Listen below via Right Wing Watch." [See Link for Audio]

 

[aNorthernSoul]

The important thing here to note is how you (and he) didn't address anything brought up, they just straight out attacked without addressing any of the points raised.

And for my own benefit, Bill Nye is not a real scientist, he is a celebrity. I quoted an actual scientist.

So, address it for real or concede that you are full of crap, wall of text poster. If you can't speak for yourself, you and your quotes mean nothing.

 

[Tyger]

The following is why engaging in a dialog with a denier merely eats up time - though it is a good demonstration of what is taking place: the 'politics' involved.

You know, the superstar "scientist" Bill Nye had a children show, but this guy calculated the number of atoms in the sun at age five... and HE thinks there are serious flaws in global warming logic and/or "science."

My post of the Bill Nye video was in direct rebuttal to your claim that he thinks there are 'serious flaws in global warming logic and/or science'. The video - which I chose at random btw - refutes your claim about his views. I have heard Bill Nye express his views on Climate Science and Global Warming and I have never heard him state what you say. Point made unless you can come up with a direct quote from Bill Nye to the opposite view.
EDIT NOTE: I just realized that you were connecting your comments to Freeman Dyson, not Bill Nye. The way your post was written it was confusing (to me). Hence my posting the Bill Nye video - which still stands as a worthy video imo.

You are also massively misunderstanding Freeman Dyson. Dyson was scientist having arguments of degree with fellow scientists but he was not positing that AGW does not exist. He simply has a different view of prognostications being made, to which he is entitled. Take a gander at wikipedia (no less) for some insight into how Dyson's thinking went.

"Friends and colleagues describe Dyson as shy and self-effacing, with a contrarian streak that his friends find refreshing but his intellectual opponents find exasperating.

"I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice", Steven Weinberg said of him.

His friend, the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks, said: "A favorite word of Freeman's about doing science and being creative is the word 'subversive'. He feels it's rather important not only to be not orthodox, but to be subversive, and he's done that all his life."​

We have more regarding his views on Climate Change.

"Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

"[Dyson] notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

"In 2008, he endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science."

"He has argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."​

"Dyson wrote: "I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated."​

The important thing here to note is how you (and he) didn't address anything brought up, they just straight out attacked without addressing any of the points raised.

Nye was speaking to the issues that make debating deniers a problem. Did you listen to the video? I suspect not - because Nye actually does get into the science - your 'the points raised'. If you cannot be honest in your conversation, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously.

Unless you mean the points Dyson raised in his article? That article doesn't really say much about the science. But this thread is not about debating the science - it's about the politics swirling in certain quarters. Dyson is certainly an example of that, so thank you for the link.

And for my own benefit, Bill Nye is not a real scientist, he is a celebrity. I quoted an actual scientist.

Bill Nye is a science educator who is well known - the way Isaac Asimov was. I suspect Bill Nye has more of a grasp of physics than most of the lay public. He knows physics. He and Dyson are different breeds of scientists, but Nye is no slouch.
LINK: Bill Nye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But this is exactly what Nye's point was in that video I linked to - deniers deflect the argument with 'credentials'. Fact is, even Dyson acknowledged that he did not have command of the technical facts of global warming but he did not pretend that AGW was not occurring. He respected his fellow scientists that far. Dyson was objecting to other - human behavior - factors that he did not like.

So, address it for real or concede that you are full of crap, wall of text poster.

I do address it 'for real'. How many scientific papers on global warming have you read in the last month? or in the last 12 months?

"Wall of text poster"? I am posting articles - does the amount of text intimidate you? There are some people who cannot link to an article - and sometimes links go defunct. In both cases the text is preserved because I have copied-and-pasted the text here. A reader is not obliged to click on a link unless they want to.

And as for being 'full of crap' - that doesn't compute. You have said you admire 'real scientists' - so I would assume you would admire Climate Scientists. Even Freeman Dyson respected the Climate Science. He may have disagreed with various ins-and-outs of it - being the contrarian he was - but he never dissed it. Your 'full of crap' dismissal is just more of the denier stuff when confronted with the undeniable facts.

If you can't speak for yourself, you and your quotes mean nothing.

Curious statement. Not sure what to make of it. I am providing articles for amusement and edification. Make of them what you will. Many here are enjoying the read. Those who aren't don't come on the thread. Simple.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

The following is why engaging in a dialog with a denier merely eats up time - though it is a good demonstration of what is taking place: the 'politics' involved.


My post of the Bill Nye video was in direct rebuttal to your claim that he thinks there are 'serious flaws in global warming logic and/or science'. The video - which I chose at random btw - refutes your claim about his views. I have heard Bill Nye express his views on Climate Science and Global Warming and I have never heard him state what you say. Point made unless you can come up with a direct quote from Bill Nye to the opposite view.
EDIT NOTE: I just realized that you were connecting your comments to Freeman Dyson, not Bill Nye. The way your post was written it was confusing (to me). Hence my posting the Bill Nye video - which still stands as a worthy video imo.

You are also massively misunderstanding Freeman Dyson. Dyson was scientist having arguments of degree with fellow scientists but he was not positing that AGW does not exist. He simply has a different view of prognostications being made, to which he is entitled. Take a gander at wikipedia (no less) for some insight into how Dyson's thinking went.

"Friends and colleagues describe Dyson as shy and self-effacing, with a contrarian streak that his friends find refreshing but his intellectual opponents find exasperating. "I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice", Steven Weinberg said of him. His friend, the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks, said: "A favorite word of Freeman's about doing science and being creative is the word 'subversive'. He feels it's rather important not only to be not orthodox, but to be subversive, and he's done that all his life."​

We have more regarding his views on Climate Change.

"Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

"[Dyson] notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

"In 2008, he endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science."

"He has argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority."​

'Dyson wrote: "I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated."​

Nye was speaking to the issues that make debating deniers a problem. Did you listen to the video? I suspect not - because Nye actually does get into the science - your 'the points raised'. If you cannot be honest in your conversation, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously.

Bill Nye is a science educator who is well known - the way Isaac Asimov was. I suspect Bill Nye has more of a grasp of physics than most of the lay public. He knows physics. He and Dyson are different breeds of scientists, but Nye is no slouch: LINK: Bill Nye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But this is exactly what Nye's point was in that video I linked to - denier's deflect with 'credentials'. Fact is, even Dyson acknowledged that he did not have command of the technical facts of global warming but he did not pretend that AGW was not occurring. Dyson was objecting to other - human behavior - factors that he did not like.

I do address it 'for real'. How many scientific papers on global warming have you read in the last month? or in the last 12 months?

'Wall of text poster"? I am posting articles - does the amount of text intimidate you? there are some people who cannot link to an article - and sometimes links go defunct. In both cases the text is preserved because I have copied-and-pasted the text here. A reader is not obliged to click on a link unless they want to.

And as for being 'full of crap' - that doesn't compute. You have said you admire 'real scientists' - so I would assume you would admire Climate Scientists. Even Freeman Dyson respected the Climate Science. He may have disagreed with various ins-and-outs of it - being the contrarian he was - but he never dissed it. Your 'full of crap' dismissal is just more of the denier stuff when confronted with the undeniable facts.

Curious statement. Not sure what to make of it. I am providing articles for amusement and edification. Make of them what you will. Many here are enjoying the read. Those who aren't don;t come on the thread. Simple.

But Bill Nye hasn't the same credentials so it becomes a bit of a moot point. Do I shrug off the thoughts of a mechanic because an autobody expert says that my transmission is fine? No, I don't.

And, I meant that I want to hear your words. Walls of text is a little impersonal.

 

[Tyger]

But Bill Nye hasn't the same credentials so it becomes a bit of a moot point.

Do you actually read a post? I suspect not. You waste a person's time. I expend effort. You do not.

Do I shrug off the thoughts of a mechanic because an autobody expert says that my transmission is fine? No, I don't.

Read my post that you quoted. Bill Nye is no slouch when it comes to understanding the 'technical details' of Climate Change. Dyson admitted he was not in command of the technical details. You do the math.

And, I meant that I want to hear your words. Walls of text is a little impersonal.

How sweet. Sorry, don't have time for this. Not interested in the slightest in having a dialog with someone who clearly doesn't do their homework and hasn't time for a well-written, coherent post. Thank you for demonstrating what the problem is.

Good luck to you.