• 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!

Investigating the Climate Change Skeptics/Deniers?

ttwtt78640 said:
Which is exactly the point of the OP and its link. This is really about keeping those that disagree with the governments agenda from messing up their urgent need to act immediately (by increasing government control?) based on "accepted science". It is clearly not about stopping all lying or even all that disagree with "accepted science".
Click to expand...

I didn't get that from the OP which I think didn't establish motive but rather focused on the chilling effect. I would give pretty good odds though that the primary agenda involved is the plaintiffs' intention to keep all that lovely grant money flowing to them.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There is a huge difference between the two things though. Any employer, even a government employer, is within bounds to dictate behavior, demeanor, hygiene and dress code, and policy to those working for them. There is no 'free speech' or right to self expression or freedom of choice when you are taking a paycheck from somebody else. The State of Florida is within its prerogatives to dictate policy to the employees. It should NOT be the prerogative of the State of Florida or any other state or the central government to dictate to anybody else what will be their behavior, dress, speech, or policy so long as they are not violating the rights of others.

An advertisement promoting a particular point of view is dictating to nobody. It is an expression of opinion and in a free society, nobody should be required to agree or disagree with it in their private life.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is (said to be) in our constitution but I'm not sure what the situation is in Canada regarding what their government's limits on private/commercial speech control are.
 
Jack Hays said:
I need not repeat what was so well said in #17. I would add that the attempt to equate climate change skepticism to the tobacco lobby is just a smear tactic of the AGW "consensus enforcement squad." There is not a shred of evidence that any entity has financed "an organized campaign" of climate skepticism.
Click to expand...

Bit more than a shred can be found in a Scientific American article of Dec 23, 2013... They make reference to a Drexel University study. Seems fairly well organized, as there seems to be an effort to inhibit the ability to trace the funds. Check out "Merchants of Doubt." Not surprisingly, the allegation is that some of the same scientists have challenged concerns about the ozone layer, acid rain, and climate change. Funding comes from foundations that oppose government interference in the market place, which makes sense, since assuming the validity of concerns about these issues, there is more pressure on the government to regulate.

Scientists may have been wrong about all these topics, but it made sense for potentially affected corporations and their allies to encourage skepticism about the phenomena.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There is a huge difference between the two things though. Any employer, even a government employer, is within bounds to dictate behavior, demeanor, hygiene and dress code, and policy to those working for them. There is no 'free speech' or right to self expression or freedom of choice when you are taking a paycheck from somebody else. The State of Florida is within its prerogatives to dictate policy to the employees. It should NOT be the prerogative of the State of Florida or any other state or the central government to dictate to anybody else what will be their behavior, dress, speech, or policy so long as they are not violating the rights of others.

An advertisement promoting a particular point of view is dictating to nobody. It is an expression of opinion and in a free society, nobody should be required to agree or disagree with it in their private life.
Click to expand...

State of Florida may be within its rights to instruct its scientists not to use terms like climate change, but it is hardly ethical and keeping trust with its public. There are many non-judicial entities within government structures, scientific bodies included, that need to be independent of political influence. For example, Trump shouldn't be able to tell the CDC or the Weather Service what terms they can or cannot use. If Florida's Guv had the background and used a scientific rationale for the prohibition, I suppose it would be different. I suspect that the instructions may be revised soon.
 
Nickyjo said:
State of Florida may be within its rights to instruct its scientists not to use terms like climate change, but it is hardly ethical and keeping trust with its public. There are many non-judicial entities within government structures, scientific bodies included, that need to be independent of political influence. For example, Trump shouldn't be able to tell the CDC or the Weather Service what terms they can or cannot use. If Florida's Guv had the background and used a scientific rationale for the prohibition, I suppose it would be different. I suspect that the instructions may be revised soon.
Click to expand...

People who agree to serve as head of departments in any administration serve at the pleasure of the President who would be a fool to appoint people who oppose his/her agenda. Disagreement is fine and should be encouraged in an effort to find the best course of action on anything. But no parent, no employer, no head of any organization, and no head of state should be required to accommodate those who will be working at cross purposes with the one who bears the responsibility. Nobody would expect President Obama to keep on board somebody who was actively working to scuttle government health care or who was adamantly opposed to DACA or who was actively opposing the IPPC Summary for Policymakers. If the leader cannot put together a team who will pull together to get things done, there is no point in having a leader at all.

But those who aren't obligated to promote the leader's agenda should not be required to support it if they don't.
 
AlbqOwl said:
People who agree to serve as head of departments in any administration serve at the pleasure of the President who would be a fool to appoint people who oppose his/her agenda. Disagreement is fine and should be encouraged in an effort to find the best course of action on anything. But no parent, no employer, no head of any organization, and no head of state should be required to accommodate those who will be working at cross purposes with the one who bears the responsibility. Nobody would expect President Obama to keep on board somebody who was actively working to scuttle government health care or who was adamantly opposed to DACA or who was actively opposing the IPPC Summary for Policymakers. If the leader cannot put together a team who will pull together to get things done, there is no point in having a leader at all.

But those who aren't obligated to promote the leader's agenda should not be required to support it if they don't.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand. How is someone who notes a particular scientific theory by name working at cross purposes to the administration? Science nomenclature is different from DACA or from endorsing a particular solution to climate change. Remember, the gov wasn't saying you shouldn't support climate change solutions, he was apparently saying you couldn't mention the term "climate change." That's going beyond instructions that weatherman cant say Irma will hit Florida, to saying you can't even mention that some people believe Irma exists.
 
Nickyjo said:
Not sure I understand. How is someone who notes a particular scientific theory by name working at cross purposes to the administration? Science nomenclature is different from DACA or from endorsing a particular solution to climate change. Remember, the gov wasn't saying you shouldn't support climate change solutions, he was apparently saying you couldn't mention the term "climate change." That's going beyond instructions that weatherman cant say Irma will hit Florida, to saying you can't even mention that some people believe Irma exists.
Click to expand...

I am not defending or agreeing with the policy. I am just saying that the department head or whomever is in charge has the responsibility to set the policy for the organization. And you and I, unless we are in the employment of such organization should have every right to agree or disagree with the policy as we see fit.

Which is not the case if the government decides to investigate, with whatever consequences come from that, those who disagree with the government policy in any given administration.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am not defending or agreeing with the policy. I am just saying that the department head or whomever is in charge has the responsibility to set the policy for the organization. And you and I, unless we are in the employment of such organization should have every right to agree or disagree with the policy as we see fit.

Which is not the case if the government decides to investigate, with whatever consequences come from that, those who disagree with the government policy in any given administration.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Nickyjo said:
Bit more than a shred can be found in a Scientific American article of Dec 23, 2013... They make reference to a Drexel University study. Seems fairly well organized, as there seems to be an effort to inhibit the ability to trace the funds. Check out "Merchants of Doubt." Not surprisingly, the allegation is that some of the same scientists have challenged concerns about the ozone layer, acid rain, and climate change. Funding comes from foundations that oppose government interference in the market place, which makes sense, since assuming the validity of concerns about these issues, there is more pressure on the government to regulate.

Scientists may have been wrong about all these topics, but it made sense for potentially affected corporations and their allies to encourage skepticism about the phenomena.
Click to expand...

[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Obama, Gore other climate alarmists refuse to debate, but love to vilify – and love their money Guest essay by Paul Driessen Manmade climate disaster proponents know the Saul Alinksy community agitator playbook by heart. In a fight, almost anything goes. Never admit error; just change your terminology and attack again. Expand your base, by…

January 18, 2015 in Opinion.
[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Guest opinion by Russell Cook | For about two decades we’ve been told the science behind human-caused global warming is settled, and to ignore skeptic scientists because they’ve been paid by industry to manufacture doubt about the issue. The truth, however, has every appearance of being exactly the opposite: A clumsy effort to manufacture doubt…

September 27, 2014 in Climate ugliness.[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]The sanctioned punishment of climate skeptics becomes more than just a few aberrant ideas, and is following some historical parallels First, I loathe having to write essays like this, but I think it is necessary given the hostile social climate now seen to be emerging. Yesterday, WUWT highlighted the NYT cartoon depicting killing “deniers” for…

February 24, 2014 in Climate ugliness, Opinion.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

I don't enter into this debate much because the 2 sides are frequently religious in their zealotry. Someone would need to pay me to get more interested. Maybe you can hook me up?:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Don't be taken in by the smear campaign.

[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Obama, Gore other climate alarmists refuse to debate, but love to vilify – and love their money Guest essay by Paul Driessen Manmade climate disaster proponents know the Saul Alinksy community agitator playbook by heart. In a fight, almost anything goes. Never admit error; just change your terminology and attack again. Expand your base, by…

January 18, 2015 in Opinion.
[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Guest opinion by Russell Cook | For about two decades we’ve been told the science behind human-caused global warming is settled, and to ignore skeptic scientists because they’ve been paid by industry to manufacture doubt about the issue. The truth, however, has every appearance of being exactly the opposite: A clumsy effort to manufacture doubt…

September 27, 2014 in Climate ugliness.[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]The sanctioned punishment of climate skeptics becomes more than just a few aberrant ideas, and is following some historical parallels First, I loathe having to write essays like this, but I think it is necessary given the hostile social climate now seen to be emerging. Yesterday, WUWT highlighted the NYT cartoon depicting killing “deniers” for…

February 24, 2014 in Climate ugliness, Opinion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am not defending or agreeing with the policy. I am just saying that the department head or whomever is in charge has the responsibility to set the policy for the organization. And you and I, unless we are in the employment of such organization should have every right to agree or disagree with the policy as we see fit.

Which is not the case if the government decides to investigate, with whatever consequences come from that, those who disagree with the government policy in any given administration.
Click to expand...

Great posts AlbqOwl. I could have 'liked' all of them.

I will be in Canada from next Tuesday and will get this sinister 'Competition Commission' shut down. Promise .... er .... maybe ....
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Obama, Gore other climate alarmists refuse to debate, but love to vilify – and love their money Guest essay by Paul Driessen Manmade climate disaster proponents know the Saul Alinksy community agitator playbook by heart. In a fight, almost anything goes. Never admit error; just change your terminology and attack again. Expand your base, by…

January 18, 2015 in Opinion.
[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]Guest opinion by Russell Cook | For about two decades we’ve been told the science behind human-caused global warming is settled, and to ignore skeptic scientists because they’ve been paid by industry to manufacture doubt about the issue. The truth, however, has every appearance of being exactly the opposite: A clumsy effort to manufacture doubt…

September 27, 2014 in Climate ugliness.[h=1]The Merchants of Smear[/h]The sanctioned punishment of climate skeptics becomes more than just a few aberrant ideas, and is following some historical parallels First, I loathe having to write essays like this, but I think it is necessary given the hostile social climate now seen to be emerging. Yesterday, WUWT highlighted the NYT cartoon depicting killing “deniers” for…

February 24, 2014 in Climate ugliness, Opinion.
Click to expand...

With respect, don't understand yr response. You said their wasn't a shred of evidence. I gave you shreds. Doesn't prove climate science one way or the other, but does suggest there is money being spent by some powerful interests to challenge proponents of the theory of human effect on climate change.
 
Nickyjo said:
With respect, don't understand yr response. You said their wasn't a shred of evidence. I gave you shreds. Doesn't prove climate science one way or the other, but does suggest there is money being spent by some powerful interests to challenge proponents of the theory of human effect on climate change.
Click to expand...

They were not evidence of any kind. Merely supposition and innuendo.
 
Jack Hays said:
They were not evidence of any kind. Merely supposition and innuendo.
Click to expand...

Still don't get it. Exxon and the Koch brothers, for example, spent money to support scientists who challenge human caused climate change. I can understand your or their skepticism about the theory, (though I have seen a company report where Exxon recognized its validity) but why deny the evidence that corporations have funded one side of the debate? Wasn't that the issue that started our exchange? I donate to, say, the Sierra Club, which spends money and time pushing my side of the issue. Oil companies do the same to advance their arguments. It's the American way.
 
Nickyjo said:
Still don't get it. Exxon and the Koch brothers, for example, spent money to support scientists who challenge human caused climate change. I can understand your or their skepticism about the theory, (though I have seen a company report where Exxon recognized its validity) but why deny the evidence that corporations have funded one side of the debate? Wasn't that the issue that started our exchange? I donate to, say, the Sierra Club, which spends money and time pushing my side of the issue. Oil companies do the same to advance their arguments. It's the American way.
Click to expand...

There has been no Exxon-Koch funded campaign to challenge AGW.
 
Jack Hays said:
They were not evidence of any kind. Merely supposition and innuendo.
Click to expand...

Still don't get it. Exxon and the Koch brothers, for example, spent money to support scientists who challenge human caused climate change. I can understand your or their skepticism about the theory, (though I have seen a company report where Exxon recognized its validity) but why deny the evidence that corporations have funded one side of the debate? Wasn't that the issue that started our exchange? I donate to, say, the Sierra Club, which spends money and time pushing my side of the issue. Oil companies do the same to advance their arguments. It's the American way.
 
Jack Hays said:
There has been no Exxon-Koch funded campaign to challenge AGW.
Click to expand...

Check out the Scientific American article I referred to for my alternative facts, or just google the question. Apparently one or the other stopped making traceable donations a while ago, but did so traceably prior to 2008. I didn't say there was a "campaign," just that there were more than shreds. I don't like it, but what is wrong with them doing it?
 
Nickyjo said:
Check out the Scientific American article I referred to for my alternative facts, or just google the question. Apparently one or the other stopped making traceable donations a while ago, but did so traceably prior to 2008. I didn't say there was a "campaign," just that there were more than shreds. I don't like it, but what is wrong with them doing it?
Click to expand...

I have been aware of Scientific American's ongoing campaign for some time.

[h=3]"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American[/h]
Scientific American › article › dark-mon...

By Douglas Fischer, The Daily Climate on December 23, 2013; 130 ... Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate ...





[h=3]Shareholders Vote to Alter Exxon's Board Due to Climate Change - Scientific American[/h]
Scientific American › article › shareholde...

May 26, 2016 - DALLAS—Stockholders at Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest private-sector oil company, passed a proposal yesterday to nominate outside candidates to the board, a move that could affect the ...




[h=3]How Money Changes Climate Debate - Scientific American[/h]
Scientific American › article › how-mone...

Mar 5, 2014 - Exxon Mobil Corp. used to be a prominent funder of organizations that took a skeptical view of ... of the foundations and individuals, including the Bradley Foundation, Scaife and the Koch brothers, ...



 
Jack Hays said:
I have been aware of Scientific American's ongoing campaign for some time.

[h=3]"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American[/h]
Scientific American › article › dark-mon...

By Douglas Fischer, The Daily Climate on December 23, 2013; 130 ... Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate ...





[h=3]Shareholders Vote to Alter Exxon's Board Due to Climate Change - Scientific American[/h]
Scientific American › article › shareholde...

May 26, 2016 - DALLAS—Stockholders at Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest private-sector oil company, passed a proposal yesterday to nominate outside candidates to the board, a move that could affect the ...




[h=3]How Money Changes Climate Debate - Scientific American[/h]
Scientific American › article › how-mone...

Mar 5, 2014 - Exxon Mobil Corp. used to be a prominent funder of organizations that took a skeptical view of ... of the foundations and individuals, including the Bradley Foundation, Scaife and the Koch brothers, ...
Click to expand...

And your point is that the other side is doing nothing?
 
Nickyjo said:
And your point is that the other side is doing nothing?
Click to expand...

My point is that the SA series is long on innuendo and supposition, and short on facts. Without an assumption of surreptitious activity there's no story, but the story itself is the only evidence.
 
Jack Hays said:
My point is that the SA series is long on innuendo and supposition, and short on facts. Without an assumption of surreptitious activity there's no story, but the story itself is the only evidence.
Click to expand...

The story makes reference to a study that seemed pretty detailed, but we are hopping around here. Simple question, do you believe that the energy industry is spending money or has spent money to finance groups, scientists, whatever, to provide alternative explanations for the theory of human caused climate change? If I was them, I would. Why do you think they wouldn't? If you were the head of an energy company, wouldn't you?

I repeat, I am not saying human caused climate change is real, just that businessmen would act like, well, businessmen and a- tend to believe or want to believe alternative scientific facts, b- finance those who agree with them, and, most importantly, c- invest in alternative forms of energy.

General Motors allegedly tried to find dirt on Ralph Nader back in the day. More recently, the Clintons allegedly tried to smear Bill's accusers. It's what humans do.

What do you think has been the industry response to climate scientists studies?
 
Nickyjo said:
The story makes reference to a study that seemed pretty detailed, but we are hopping around here. Simple question, do you believe that the energy industry is spending money or has spent money to finance groups, scientists, whatever, to provide alternative explanations for the theory of human caused climate change? If I was them, I would. Why do you think they wouldn't? If you were the head of an energy company, wouldn't you?

I repeat, I am not saying human caused climate change is real, just that businessmen would act like, well, businessmen and a- tend to believe or want to believe alternative scientific facts, b- finance those who agree with them, and, most importantly, c- invest in alternative forms of energy.

General Motors allegedly tried to find dirt on Ralph Nader back in the day. More recently, the Clintons allegedly tried to smear Bill's accusers. It's what humans do.

What do you think has been the industry response to climate scientists studies?
Click to expand...

The study is detailed only in its recitation of suspicions. I have no doubt that entities in the energy industry financed research into energy-related topics. I agree with you that's to be expected. I don't agree this represents financing any particular point of view.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I will gently disagree with this. Stating an opinion that it is the sun instead of CO2 that drives most climate change is not an entirely unscientific opinion. It is simply an expressed opinion, not a misleading statement for personal gain and/or to benefit somebody. You can advertise that your product is the best when it isn't. But you can't say it cures cancer if it won't.
Click to expand...

First of all, that's an editorial in the Toronto Sun. Secondly, I agree with RabidAlpaca, as he quoted that "the investigation was run by the Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate, not some rogue agency". I think it's appalling in the US, that the fossil-fuel industry spends billions to discredit scientists, with lies, through organizations like the Heartland Institute. There has to be some kind of recourse against heavily-funded lying. We saw this same crap with the tobacco industry in the '50s and '60s.
 
Media_Truth said:
First of all, that's an editorial in the Toronto Sun. Secondly, I agree with RabidAlpaca, as he quoted that "the investigation was run by the Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate, not some rogue agency". I think it's appalling in the US, that the fossil-fuel industry spends billions to discredit scientists, with lies, through organizations like the Heartland Institute. There has to be some kind of recourse against heavily-funded lying. We saw this same crap with the tobacco industry in the '50s and '60s.
Click to expand...

The only lying here is yours.
 
Jack Hays said:
The study is detailed only in its recitation of suspicions. I have no doubt that entities in the energy industry financed research into energy-related topics. I agree with you that's to be expected. I don't agree this represents financing any particular point of view.
Click to expand...

I'll go to the well one more time. I once researched cigarettes, smog, acid rain, and the ozone hole controversy. In each instance steps were taken to minimize the problem, which in some cases wasn't as serious as first thought. But in general, changes were made and things got better. LA's air is cleaner than some years ago. Have read that the lakes in the northeast are in better shape. Don't know about the ozone hole. But in each instance, I found evidence that the potentially affected industries took some steps to finance or promote the skeptical side of the question. It seems to make sense that humans, being the sometimes greedy imperfect beings we are, might just -- in moments of weakness -- have done this with respect to climate change. Reporting from several sources suggests they have. I choose to believe the reporting.

With that, I suggest you do the research and report back if you will. My job here is done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom