• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers

VanceMack said:
Really? You think you will find people that deny that the climate changes? Or that the climate hasnt always changed? Or that there hasnt historically been ice ages and warming ages...all caused by the evil 'nature'?
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
I have only seen one in all the time discussing this topic here at DP.
Click to expand...
Alright, you guys are trying to obfuscate with literally meaning, ignoring context.

We all here know the topic is "Man-made" or "Human Contributory" Climate change.

You're pretending you didn't know that?

It's difficult to have rationale discussion under such pretext.

And I also suspect you knew my post was an attempt at humor, but you're ignoring that context as well.

Neither of you two know what emoticons mean? Like this one ";)"
 
These people are scum and the lowest of the low. I hope a list of names is forthcoming.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright, you guys are trying to obfuscate with literally meaning, ignoring context.

We all here know the topic is "Man-made" or "Human Contributory" Climate change.

You're pretending you didn't know that?

It's difficult to have rationale discussion under such pretext.

And I also suspect you knew my post was an attempt at humor, but you're ignoring that context as well.

Neither of you two know what emoticons mean? Like this one ";)"
Click to expand...

I was referring to what a "denier" is, in the circles of AGW. I have only seen one denier in DP, and not in the last several months. Those of us who believe contrary to what we consider an exaggerated view, should not be called deniers. We believe man changes the climate. We just don't agree with the alarming view presented.

That's why I am part of the 97% of any consensus taken to date.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I was referring to what a "denier" is, in the circles of AGW. I have only seen one denier in DP, and not in the last several months. Those of us who believe contrary to what we consider an exaggerated view, should not be called deniers. We believe man changes the climate. We just don't agree with the alarming view presented.

That's why I am part of the 97% of any consensus taken to date.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think you make a reasonable point in that "denier" can appear derogatory.

I think the term may be accurate in a strict literal sense, but can see where it could be objected, much as I objected to the strict literal use of "climate change".

Fair enough.

This is my first foray into this section.

Thanks.
 
Chomsky said:
Alright, you guys are trying to obfuscate with literally meaning, ignoring context.

We all here know the topic is "Man-made" or "Human Contributory" Climate change.

You're pretending you didn't know that?

It's difficult to have rationale discussion under such pretext.

And I also suspect you knew my post was an attempt at humor, but you're ignoring that context as well.

Neither of you two know what emoticons mean? Like this one ";)"
Click to expand...

Why did the AGW crowd abandon "AGW" in favor of "Climate Change"?
 
VanceMack said:
Why did the AGW crowd abandon "AGW" in favor of "Climate Change"?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for others, but it's my understanding Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change.
 
Chomsky said:
I can't speak for others, but it's my understanding Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change.
Click to expand...
They changed it for 2 reasons. One...they cannot prove the Anthropomorphic component and two...they cannot demonstrate 'global warming' without lying and changing datasets, computer models, and rewriting history. But Climate Change...well hell...of COURSE the climate changes. Everyone knows the climate changes and always has and always will. And man has nothing to do with it. Man didnt cause the ice ages. Man didnt cause the warming periods. Man didnt create the weather. The planet has been and always will be in a constant state of 'change'.
 
Chomsky said:
I can't speak for others, but it's my understanding Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change.
Click to expand...

I thought it was so they could claim regional abnormal opposites of their previous claims were also cause by us.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The link works on my end. The Bloomberg article is displayed. Whether one agrees with it, is a separate matter.

Putting aside issues about climate science and labels (I don't use the labels the article uses e.g., I use "contrarian" rather than "denier"), from an organization standpoint the study's findings are probably what one should expect. Networks involving funders and interest groups/activists are common when it comes to efforts to influence public policy. The networks allow for a rapid flow and sharing of information to bolster the interests of those involved in the network. . . .
Click to expand...

The link now works.

Kochs, Exxon “influence”? Yale experts hunt through 40,000 documents for Big-Oil smear, find almost nothing


Got no actual data-trail on “big-oil” dollars? That’s no reason not to run another name-calling smear article. A Yale group has spent countless months reading through the tea-leaves of old worn out climate themes and think they’ve discovered that the Kochs and Exxon carried the most influence.
What’s really remarkable is that the Yale group had so much funding they could trawl through 40,000 documents, track 4556 people and 164 organisation across 20 years and through 39 million words. Yet despite this, they found nothing. There’s no smoking gun, no proof that anyone was being dishonest, that the messages were wrong.
What the Yale team found was that “documents produced by lobbyists backed by two key corporate benefactors (Koch and Exxon) — proved to have been reproduced more often and with more “semantic similarity”. Justin Farrell (of Yale) thinks that means the Koch’s and Exxon are artificially skewing public opinion. Here’s another hypothesis — Exxon and the Kochs are smart businessmen. They spotted the leading skeptics in the 1990′s and gave them some help. The messages stuck with the public because they were good ones, not because they were “oil funded”. Farrell gets cause and effect confused.
Despite running down 40,000 rabbit holes, Farrell misses the numbers that matter when it comes to money and influence. If the Koch money has influence, the trainload of government money ought be 5000 times more influential. If, as Farrell says, only 14% of Americans think man-made climate change matters, either Koch and Exxon money is wildly effective, or just possibly, the government funded argument is a loser and 86% of Americans have figured that out.
Climate science: corporate donors behind influential deniers
Corporate dollars are skewing climate science in a taste of things to come as researchers become increasingly reliant on private funding.
Which private funds? The climate debate is the gold-plated government funded gravy train of scientific research. In 2014 Obama gave more than $2.6 billion to research climate science. That’s got to fund a few climate scientists. Now ask yourself how many private companies are building climate models to predict the climate in 2100. Zero? Could be.
Keep reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom