Remember me
▼ Content

An Explaination of Skeptics.


An Explaination of Skeptics.12-05-2011 17:55
hotair
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
First and foremost many people are confused by where the skeptics come from what they say, and why they do what they do. There is an explanation.

Frank Luntz is a Republican pollster who penned the techniques required to manipulate language to deflect, or delay the potential damage to the oil and gas industry from scientific consensus which was well understood at that time (1995).

Here's a documentary about "The Denial Machine". (This is the Canadian version of 60 Minutes.)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811#

If you don't want to watch it all... Frank Luntz recants in the last 2 minutes, saying that he didn't mean for everything to continue this charade for this long.

However his memo is the reason Exxon has been funding 'Skeptics' to the tune of $44 million over the last 10 years or so. This is to keep the 'debate' alive.

Here's his Memo; (Check page 7 to see what was shown in the documentary.)
http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

He is also the adviser to Stephan Harper, Canada's prime minister.
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=e0a004b7-31a1-4925-bb2c-dc34e911aceb&k=25352



To better understand what the methodology of 'Skeptics' is you need to first realize that they attempt to 'keep the debate alive' as Luntz says. There is never scientific work performed, or peer reviewed papers to support what they say.

The fact is that most people can't tell real science from the fake stuff the 'Skeptics' put forward. For instance, I almost fell for this;
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/fast-recovery-of-thick-arctic-ice-d6-e19.php The language is carefully couched... it says "A significant thick ice recovery is taking place now." Kind of skipping over the fact that the 'scientific study' is in fact an analysis of an old navy sea ice prediction program, and it has nothing to do with the Arctic at all.


In my opinion, bloggers are entertainment, and should be viewed as such. I think you'll find that http://www.playboy.com contains more facts than Exxon 'Skeptics'.

If you need to a quick guide to how they work read this;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf


Here's the run down they use;
Cherry Picking: Hyper focus on microscopic detail, and avoid the big picture.
Shoot the Messengers: This is a time honored technique.
Willfully avoid all Evidence: As predicted in 1990, the Arctic Ice is now melting.


As you can see from the IPCC projections, our climate is changing as expected (look at page 106, B4 for instance);
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_Suppl_Report_1992_wg_I/ipcc_wg_I_1992_suppl_report_section_b.pdf

Now look at what environment Canada has measured 19 years later. (This shows the 1948 to 2010 temperature shift.)
http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

If anything all the original estimates were too conservative. Temperature is rising at a HIGHER rate than the 1992 models.
18-09-2011 17:44
Madison
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Thanks for the clear-cut explanation. I'm watching "The Denial Machine" right now. Seems interesting.

Also, if you are interested in the history of climate denial, Naomi Oreskes is THE EXPERT that you should consult. She has convincingly shown how the denial was started and funded.
25-10-2011 08:32
Geoff Sherrington
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Hotair: Maybe you should swap notes with Michael Palmer, the author of this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/#comment-776101

Confession. Not noe of my friends, nor I, has ever received a cent from any funder, be it of denialism or another approach to climate "science".
21-08-2012 04:36
blissdragon
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Thanks! Watched "The Denial Machine" and shared it with others in my world..posted a link to it on our blog.

*high five*


blissdragon

www.pacingtheplanet.org
RE: climate change skeptics15-07-2013 04:37
shaun guest
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
I don't understand the term' skepticism'.it seems logical to me that,exxon is not an official body of government..it is not a member of any world ruling body orcharter of nations,it does not write or sanction lawmaking..its power lays in the ability to spew money at whoever or whatever is representative of the authority that does...if I were the authority in question..this is what I would do..or at least try to implement.acknowledge the fact that a general concensus cannot be reached.regulate the spending of funds opposing parties use to convince each other that the other side is wrong..form a federal body that orders detailed accounts of any and all things that have to do with the matter of climate change..research,spending,debate,the whole lot..must be meticulously and catergorically recorded,and make it a criminal offence to voice your parties results or findings unless unanimously agreed upon by a sanctioning committee to be absolutely conclusive and therefore deemed accurate fact,anything that can be counter argued in the tiniest detail will not be made public nor will it be construed as fact..the skeptics are very much the masters of''keeping the debate alive''and other such subtle and not so subtle machinations that keeps the game from hearing the final whistle as it should be..pollisters and lobbyists and other tacticians excel at such things..the great power that is the masses is the only true power on this earth..easily accomplishing great things..and just as easily persuaded...both parties will be ordered to stop trying to convince us of its views...then given a specific timeframe to bring full scientific evidence data of climate change effects..all auditors will be independent of concerning parties.influence of the tiniest bit will be subject to the full force of federal power of prosecution..in the meantime..plans for the reduction of emissions etc that is currently being proved or disproved will be put into immediate effect as a cautionary measure so as to be not in conflict with implementing such measures at a time deemed too late for the continual integrity of our planet..both sides must understand to do so and be proved wrong will be of no negative effect.things will carry on as the always have..the only option since to not implement such a measure and be proven right...potentionally cataclysmic consequences can not be entertained for one second as an acceptable risk.that is my solution to both sides..the skeptics stall the game by refusing to play it..so they must be ordered back into play or risk being forfeit.i can plainly see that if climate change is true then its gonna be bad....proven wrong...ITS STILL BAD..because we wont see it in our lifetime??SO WHAT!!its not about us..its about our species survival,the earth will not explode..it will purge from its body what is hurting it..which is us..oil,minerals,precious metals,gasses,everything that is extracted from the earth will never be replaced.at least not in the frail human concept of time, humans have changed almost every chemical known to the periodic table that makes up the earth,in 100 years we have managed to convert into some kind of emission..oxygen and hydrogen inclusive usually,,which means we as humans choke on it before it goes up into the various spheres..the earth will remain..as always,it will heal in time..it just has to get rid of us first..its got no choice cos we are making it so.the earths lifeblood is not something to be used for our personal convenience..we must drastically cut any and every emissions..not to please the advocates for change..or to curb the main antagonists of emissions.but because ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.the human race needs a break aswell.with all the lifespan reducing methods and practices of profit industry has given us.that is unnatural and anathema to all human life processes..gases and chemicals limit our mobility,that shrink our lungs,that attacks our organs,that take away our immune systems,that clogs and hardens and reduces and shortens EVERYTHING that propagates growth and life..i don't think either side would want to say I told you so..the shear selfish audacity of it..they wouldn't dare
23-08-2013 19:50
Enviro0801
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
What drives me really nuts is when political and media figures accuse scientists of essentially being corrupt and manipulating their findings to keep their funding. That does occasionally happen, but there is a rigorous checks and balance system within the science realm. Findings should be falsifiable so that anyone with the know how can reproduce the experiment and see if they get similar results. There's extensive peer-review before journal publishing and public access. It's actually quite hard to be corrupt in most scientific genres. Besides the fact that it's a ludacris claim; I can't think of a better example of the quintessential "pot calling the kettle black" than these jack@sses claiming expert scientists are just propaganda machines. Being a student of environmental science myself, I can't help but cringe at the misinformation that comes out of the media and politicians. Most of them can't even comprehend how science works, much less climate science. That mostly pertains to the right wing "denier" group, but I have similar issues with much of the left too. I'm not a huge fan of Al Gore. He's a "good" politician, and a master at rhetoric, but he ain't no scientist. I'd say he does more harm than good because his super alarmist/extremist methods just amplify the other side. I understand the importance in getting the truth to the public via politics/media, I just wish it wasn't such BS...
23-08-2013 20:07
Enviro0801
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
PS: Misinformation is one of the easiest things to spread when your target audience is mostly made up of willfully ignorant sheep. I love how the term "skeptic" is used to describe some of the least skeptical people I've come across. Many of them so readily accept information from the most ridiculous sources like popular media. Follow the dollar trail of that information and find yourself face-to-face with Mr. Exxon no doubt. That's the only explanation, because how can such misleading and horrible information propagate so fast and efficiently? There must be intent behind it. Hell, we go to wars to make sure our precious black gold doesn't get in the hands of the "wrong" people. You think we gonna let some smarty pant scientists tell us to stop pumping our lifeblood??! Amurica! Jack@sses...
05-05-2014 09:07
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
If you check out all the donations from Exxon I think you might be surprise that the overwhelming amount of money they donate goes to environmental groups, they want good public relations.
Skeptics want to keep the debate alive YES but no one will debate us in public.
The Arctic is melting yep it is but not by a great amount, while at the same time the Antarctic ice extent is at record levels in fact taken together global sea ice extent was 1.000.000sq km above average last week.
I am a skeptic I am not in denial, I know what denial is when my wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer I was for a time in denial then.
As for cherry picking congratulations you have done a fantastic job.
As for SKS their illustrious leader John Cook likes to dress up as a Nazi https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607991189693333527&pid=15.1
which doesn't make me feel confident in what he says.
As of now it is 17yrs 9 months without any significat temperature rise
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2014_v5.png
31-05-2014 20:50
smorris@isi
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
I'm watching the denial machine right now. It makes a lot of really good points.
Thanks for the info... I never would have thought Frank Luntz did anything other than those stupid live polling stunts on Fox News.
19-08-2014 04:06
just sayin
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I just like discussing science...i think the word denier instead of skeptic is flaming....its relating it to the holocaust..even worse then the evolution comparison
07-09-2014 17:00
Vic
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Blaming climate change on man produced CO2 has no scientific credibility. Water vapour over which we have no control is the major greenhouse gas. The climate has a history of changing all the time and has no correlation to the presence of CO2. Dr. Heinz hug has shown the reducing effect of CO2 as percentage is in creased. He also demonstrated that most of the energy radiated from our planet is impervious to green house gases Check out the frequencies and which ones are blocked by CO2 Vic
07-09-2014 17:54
Madison
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
Vic wrote:
Water vapour over which we have no control is the major greenhouse gas.

Water vapour is only feedback, not a driving force. CO2 actually drives the temperature up. Water vapour just follows.

The climate has a history of changing all the time and has no correlation to the presence of CO2. Dr. Heinz hug has shown the reducing effect of CO2 as percentage is in creased. He also demonstrated that most of the energy radiated from our planet is impervious to green house gases Check out the frequencies and which ones are blocked by CO2

So you are basically denying the greenhouse effect, a well known scientific fact since the 19th century?
24-09-2014 05:23
spicez
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Madison, unfortunately your limited understanding about the science in this subject mater does you no favors.

1. Water vapor is not ONLY a feedback, it IS the most powerful greenhouse gas. You will not find a single scientist on the planet that will deny that. You only misunderstand the science.

What climate alarmists want us to believe is that very slight temperature increases (caused by CO2 or other sources) will cause never ending feedback loops of increased water vapor until the planet boils over (I exaggerate, but you get my point... or maybe you don't).

2. He did no such thing as deny the greenhouse gas effect. You jumped to a conclusion because of your misunderstanding of the subject.

Dr. Heinz Hug demonstrated that the IR absorption rate of CO2 is logarithmic. Meaning you get more effect from the first 100PPM of CO2 than you do from the following 300 combined. The higher the concentration, the less that ADDITIONAL concentration absorbs.
25-09-2014 21:15
jackkarter
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
First I'd like to say, I'm a sceptic. Not because I have any particular agenda, but I always like to see facts before I make up my mind about anything.
The debate on climate change is full of misinformation but from what i've read it seems to be coming mainly from the climate change advocates.
I haven't seen anything, not a single shred of scientific evidence that even remotely indicates a man made change in our climate.
Even the above article and comments are full of "facts" but nothing to back it up. Where are the links to the research to back these claims up?
Whats with the "97% of scientists"? Scientists of what? What are their qualifications? Show me their publications please?

Burn The Witch
29-09-2014 13:04
James_S
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
I must say I am with Jack on this. Lot of the information is just babble with no facts and proof to back it up. Its also vaguely said that: the scientists say. Who are they? A random bunch or someone in particular?
26-11-2014 12:08
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Kano wrote:
As of now it is 17yrs 9 months without any significat temperature rise


And what was this?



Look at what these data do between 1941 and 1979. Did that mark the end of warming? Did that refute the greenhouse effect? No and no. What we have experienced over the last 17 years is still within the noise of the observed trend. That the oceans began warming radically at the same time surface warming abated, that a great deal of the reduced surface warming is cooler water being turned over to the ocean's surface as the warmer water was rolled over into the deep and that satellite observations measuring the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere still show we are accumulating heat and doing so at an acccelerating pace - all tells me that the hiatus does NOT mark the end of warming and in NO way refutes the greenhouse effect or AGW.
10-12-2014 12:39
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I don't see any responses to this note. Does that mean I've won? ;-)
10-12-2014 23:49
spicez
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
It means no one thinks you are worth debating.

1. You show a graph with no source as to the data.
2. You show a graph from wikipedia... known CAGW haven.
3. 18 years 2 months is not exactly noise. When you consider that most of the warming that CAGW is worried about happened over (approx.) 20 years (1976- 1996). The current pause/slowdown is significant.
4. There is very slight warming of the oceans, it is certainly not "radical". You do like to use extreme words that arent based in facts.
5. The rest of the heat cannot be demonstrated to have gone to depths below 2000 feet in the ocean as we have NO way to currently measure temperatures below 3000 feet on a global scale.
6. Satellite data clearly shows no accelerating pace to warming, actually satellite data is CAGW biggest fear. As it demonstrates quite clearly that the models do not work.
7. I'm not saying it will never warm again, as I do not presume to be able to make those predictions, no one can, however the pause definitely throws a wrench into the models, which are the sole basis of this whole scare campaign.
8. There is no need to refute the greenhouse effect, it is real, AGW to a certain degree is real as well. Its the scaremongering that is a lie. And especially the runaway forcing theory as well.
11-12-2014 06:35
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
spicez wrote:
It means no one thinks you are worth debating.


Thar ye go may-ee

spicez wrote:
1. You show a graph with no source as to the data.


If you haven't seen that very graph a dozen times, you haven't been discussing this topic long enough. I see below you had no problem finding a source for it.

spicez wrote:
2. You show a graph from wikipedia... known CAGW haven.


You can find no tendencies in Wikipedia articles on this topic that aren't simply a reflection of the actual scientific literature. And the term "CAGW" is a construct of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.

spicez wrote:
3. 18 years 2 months is not exactly noise.


The trend has excursions in it in excess of 30 years in length. 18 years and 2 months is easily within the noise. I can demonstrate this to you mathematically if you like, but if you can't look at that graph - or any graph you prefer showing the same time period - and see that the current hiatus is not yet noteworthy, you need to get your glasses checked.

spicez wrote:
When you consider that most of the warming that CAGW is worried about happened over (approx.) 20 years (1976- 1996). The current pause/slowdown is significant.


The trend that AGW pertains to coincides with the industrial revolution which started considerably before 1976.

You haven't had a lot of statistics, have you.

spicez wrote:
4. There is very slight warming of the oceans, it is certainly not "radical". You do like to use extreme words that arent based in facts.


Those would be words used by a good dozen PhDs in characterizing precisely this finding. On what do you base "very slight" and "certainly not radical"?

spicez wrote:
5. The rest of the heat cannot be demonstrated to have gone to depths below 2000 feet in the ocean as we have NO way to currently measure temperatures below 3000 feet on a global scale.


Argo floats go to 2000 METERS (6,561 feet). Are you familiar with Argo floats? How about the Sippican T-5 XBT probes (2500 feet) that the world's navies have been dropping more than daily around the world since the mid 1960s?

spicez wrote:
6. Satellite data clearly shows no accelerating pace to warming


Really? Let's see your satellite data. Here's some of mine:



What I stated is that satellites (actually, data from two different satellites) show an increase in the imbalance between the energy from the sun striking the Earth and the energy that the Earth is radiating back out into space. For our temperature to be stable, those two values must be equal. They are not and the difference is growing. The Earth is still accumulating solar energy, mostly in the world's oceans.

spicez wrote:
actually satellite data is CAGW biggest fear.

CAGW is a red herring produced by the fossil fuel industry. AGW is anthropogenic global warming. It is a process taking place within Earth's climate. It is not justifiably anthropomorphized. If you wish to talk about people, please use titles, labels or names normally assigned to people.

spicez wrote:
As it demonstrates quite clearly that the models do not work.


Please explain.

spicez wrote:
7. I'm not saying it will never warm again, as I do not presume to be able to make those predictions, no one can


How's your weatherman do? How have hurricane forecasts been doing the last few years? What makes you think "no one can"?

spicez wrote:
however the pause definitely throws a wrench into the models


You seem to be able to predict that model projections will fail. On what is that based?

spicez wrote:
which are the sole basis of this whole scare campaign.


If you know a better way to make projections of the future behavior of the Earth's climate, there's a world of scientists out there that'd love to hear about it.

spicez wrote:
8. There is no need to refute the greenhouse effect, it is real


The 99+% of the world's scientists that accept it as a fact will be glad to hear of your graciousness.

spicez wrote:
AGW to a certain degree is real as well. Its the scaremongering that is a lie. And especially the runaway forcing theory as well.


Would you mind identifying who you believe has been pushing a runaway forcing theory? A chapter and page in AR5? A name? A link?
21-02-2017 18:39
litesong
★★★★★
(2350)
Kano wrote:The Arctic is melting yep it is but not by a great amount, while at the same time the Antarctic ice extent is at record levels in fact taken together global sea ice extent was 1.000.000sq km above average last week.
I am a skeptic I am not in denial...

An old 2014 post, egotistically declaring he is a skkkepikkk, as he foists off cherry picking data (which he rails against) for 2014:
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2014_day_27_1981-2010.png
The cherry picked data that AGW denier liar whiners crowed about in the 2013-14 period has all gone away, replaced with wild sea ice diversions in 2017. Of course, the Arctic sea ice continues on its downward plummet. Greenland & Antarctic land ice plummets also continue.
Edited on 21-02-2017 18:42




Join the debate An Explaination of Skeptics.:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact