| hotair | An Explaination of Skeptics. |
Posts: 11
Joined: 11.05.11 |
Posted on 12-05-2011 17:55 |
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.
|
| Madison | RE: An Explaination of Skeptics. |
Posts: 2
Joined: 18.09.11 |
Posted on 18-09-2011 17:44 |
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.
|
| Geoff Sherrington | RE: An Explaination of Skeptics. |
Posts: 1
Location: Australia
Joined: 25.10.11 |
Posted on 25-10-2011 08:32 |
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".
|
 |
New Global Warming Newsletter-Must READ!!
