This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower - Comments

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 1 by aroundtown

This article does not surprise me at all. It's pretty simple really that the business conglomerates will stop at nothing to make another buck, and if the planet suffers for it, oh well. Just today the story came out that the republicans are touting a construction project of their own since they can't abide any bill other than their own as having any credibility. I will post a small segment here.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Republicans will propose legislation on Tuesday calling for $260 billion in spending on transportation infrastructure for up to five years, an election-year proposal touted as a job creator in a tough economy. Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica was due to formally introduce the measure and unveil details for funding road, bridge, and rail improvements at a news conference, his office said. Additional elements could be tacked on by other committees in coming days, including a plan to authorize the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline despite the refusal of President Barack Obama to advance the project.

I am sure you will notice that the pipe line is back on their minds and it will stay there till the whiners get their way. Bottom line is the planet is in trouble over this fossil fuel gulping and if you try to stop it or suggest it is a factor they just blow it off. Money is their master and let's be very clear as to who these folks are, the republicans. I am so sick of these deluded bible thumping, money loving scumbags and their lies.

I should comment that it is January here in the Pacific Northwest and people were spotted wearing short's today and if felt like spring to me. Is the planet warming up, Duh!!

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:21:07 UTC | #912943

Quine's Avatar Comment 2 by Quine

I read one of the articles when it hit on the weekend, and was very disappointed that the WSJ would print something that is full of positions that have been scientifically debunked long ago. Even the "Climategate" canard was trotted out. Shame on the editors; I hope they get the full outrage that they deserve.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:51:02 UTC | #912951

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 3 by ZenDruid

Apparently, "David Rose" of the Daily Fail article is none other than Johann Hari.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:05:51 UTC | #912953

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 4 by Jos Gibbons

Please, please see the temperature graph in its original context; its an animation that pokes fun at how climate change deniers use brief downward parts of the data to pretend the world has started cooling in ... well, they keep changing their mind about the year when they're proven wrong.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:00:11 UTC | #912964

PERSON's Avatar Comment 5 by PERSON

The WSJ got bought by his imperial Mudrockiness, but this isn't anything new. The convention used to be anything goes in the editorial section, properly researched/sourced news in the rest of the paper. I wouldn't assume that'll continue; the temptation to strategically place biased stories at important points in time will be too great. However, the WSJ has run denialist pieces in the past.

On the other hand, the WSJ does claim to be reputable, even with the steam-coming-out-of-ears hypercapitalist/ultraconservative and sometimes incoherent OpEds. Does that require placing limits on what can be said? Surely so, but I wonder what those limits are and how they're set. The range of generally acceptable opinion must be a factor.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:07:54 UTC | #912974

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 6 by drumdaddy

WSJ took a stance against global warming indicators years ago and continues to propogate the denial myth. When confronted with facts, they ignore them or cherry-pick them and then they double down and stick to their denialism. The deniers own most of the media and do the bidding of big oil, gas, and coal. There are bucks involved so don't go looking for truth. Misinforming the masses is their business. Does anybody smell that Murdoch stench? And, I repeat, when will that prick be thrown in jail for crimes against humanity?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:18:49 UTC | #912985

zarkoff45's Avatar Comment 7 by zarkoff45

It says, "nine of the ten hottest years on record all occurred since the year 2000."

How do you get nine years happening in one year? Is global warming causing some sort of time dilation effect?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:29:02 UTC | #912989

mmurray's Avatar Comment 8 by mmurray

Comment 7 by zarkoff45 :

It says, "nine of the ten hottest years on record all occurred since the year 2000."

How do you get nine years happening in one year? Is global warming causing some sort of time dilation effect?

It says since 2000 not during 2000. The ten hottest years on record in order are

2005, 2010, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2001

Nine of these occurred since 2000.

Michael

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:39:05 UTC | #912994

Jonathan Dore's Avatar Comment 9 by Jonathan Dore

As we should all know by now, Murdoch knows no shame.

For light relief, here's an amusement from a group of rather better-informed Australians.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:44:50 UTC | #913003

mmurray's Avatar Comment 10 by mmurray

Comment 9 by Jonathan Dore :

As we should all know by now, Murdoch knows no shame.

For light relief, here's an amusement from a group of rather better-informed Australians.

Luckily Rupert is not an Australian anymore.

Michael

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:52:32 UTC | #913007

Jonathan Dore's Avatar Comment 11 by Jonathan Dore

Comment 3 by ZenDruid

Apparently, "David Rose" of the Daily Fail article is none other than Johann Hari.

No, this seems to be another David Rose: see the clarification in the second paragraph of Jack of Kent's posting here. I assume the Daily Fail Rose is the second one mentioned there.

By the way, I hadn't heard the story about Johann Hari's alter ego before. Profoundly sad and rather astonishing news about someone whose writings, and stand on various issues, I'd greatly admired.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:56:24 UTC | #913008

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 12 by Agrajag

It's in the 50s here in Chicago. It's only "local", but pretty strange for late January.
Steve

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:59:03 UTC | #913009

Jonathan Dore's Avatar Comment 13 by Jonathan Dore

Comment 10 by mmurray

Luckily Rupert is not an Australian anymore.

Yes indeed! Good riddance, though sadly he still controls an eye-watering proportion of the country's print media.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:01:38 UTC | #913010

sbooder's Avatar Comment 14 by sbooder

Oh great, another article by the Daily Mail that will haunt me when I visit my Mother in law next. I will have to suffer the misguided belief that global warming is not happening because the Mail and her church going Mail reading cronies will testify to that too.

As much as Phil Plait believes the cavalry have ridden in, I can assure him that not one Daily Mail reader has even heard of the list provided let alone read anything they publish.

This is more than just frustrating, it incenses.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:32:35 UTC | #913018

Daryl 's Avatar Comment 15 by Daryl

The problem was calling it global warming and not climate change from the start. And the graph simply proves Bobby Henderson the prophet he truly is. Because what is not shown on the graph is the very clear lack of classic Carribean pirates, providing the Flying Spaghetti Monster's anger thereby causing climate change.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:42:37 UTC | #913024

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 16 by Cartomancer

I have often wondered about the mindset that would claim that anthropogenic climate change is some kind of conspiracy. I have encountered this mindset before, albeit in a milder form, from my parents, when drunk, on the issue of government attempts to stop people smoking. When sober they're perfectly happy to acknowledge that smoking is harmful (they still do it to excess though), but when drunk apparently there's some kind of secret, powerful anti-smoking industry pulling the strings behind the scenes.

In both cases there seems to be a complete refusal to contemplate precisely what the putative conspirators would stand to gain. Why WOULD anyone go to great lengths to convince people that climate change was real if it actually wasn't? Or that smoking was harmful if it actually wasn't? What could anyone actually gain from doing so?

It's not hard to see what those on the other side stand to gain from pretending that it isn't happening when in fact it is. Oil companies are obscenely wealthy. Tobacco companies are obscenely wealthy. Both have fingers in all sorts of political pies. And oil is convenient and tobacco is addictive - people have considerable psychological as well as financial investment in both.

And on the other side we have... what? Environmentalists? Who ever got rich campaigning for more responsible industrial practises and cleaner transport? Health professionals? They'd make more money cosying up to the tobacco industry than opposing it. Scientists trying to attract funding and keep themselves in work? There would still be a need for climate science even if there was no climate change, and there are plenty of other (and much, much more commercially applicable) areas of science to address oneself to.

I repeat, what exactly would anyone stand to gain from pretending that anthropogenic climate change was happening if in fact it wasn't? Beyond the sheer perverse devilment of doing so? Well that might work as a motivation for comic-book villains, but it's not the sort of thing that could sustain what would have to be the most widespread and profound conspiracy the world has ever seen.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:45:49 UTC | #913028

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 17 by Border Collie

In my business, I tell people all the time that they don't have to believe or accept one word I say and that the market will educate them. It's a much harder lesson, but, hey, whatever. Likewise, the deniers don't have to believe or accept one word of science. The climate will educate them whether they like it or not. I'm afraid that the climate will be much more unforgiving in its educational approach, however.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:54:10 UTC | #913032

PERSON's Avatar Comment 18 by PERSON

Comment 17 by Border Collie

That's the critical problem: we all get "educated" because of their foolishness, fear and greed. It's a general problem. Just because resource limits can be increased and have been increased, doesn't mean they always will be, will be soon enough, or that there are no limits. I'm amazed by how many people seem (claim?) not to understand this, and that it's some kind of dogma, rather than an obvious and inescapable conclusion.

One can discuss what those limits are, but to state that there are none, or none that matter is lunacy. IIRC, even Pinker makes this kind of strange assertion. It seems to be a staple of conventional economic thinking, as well as the extremists one might expect such things of.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:35:22 UTC | #913046

LucindaE's Avatar Comment 19 by LucindaE

...the WSJ turned down an article about the reality of global warming that was signed by 255 actual climate scientists.

I find that the most disturbing sentence, as it suggests bias from the WSJ editors themselves, rather than 'just' the deniers who came up with the published article.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:00:48 UTC | #913059

some asshole's Avatar Comment 20 by some asshole

NO, NO, NO!!! Think like a righty! Trends don't matter (hell, they don't even exist, unless perhaps it's an imaginary trend of increasingly-liberal policies). You pick data points that reinforce your ridiculous claims. Just look at the graph: Several individual points show that recent years had lower temperatures than individual points in previous years. Taa-daa! Go to press!

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:02:19 UTC | #913060

Philster61's Avatar Comment 21 by Philster61

So the religious even deny their own Armageddon?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:12:46 UTC | #913064

papa lazaru's Avatar Comment 22 by papa lazaru

Climate change denial is an excuse for preserving the status quo, that's the problem I have with climate change deniers and skeptics. "Keep calm and carry on...".

On the other hand, global warming supporters really haven't got anything to gain from it.

Besides, the data backs their claim. Denying the scientific position seems either wishful thinking (head in the sand) or hypocrisy (because it is not to your short-term benefit to do something about it).

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:14:23 UTC | #913065

quarecuss's Avatar Comment 23 by quarecuss

Comment 16 by Cartomancer

Oil companies are obscenely wealthy. Tobacco companies are obscenely wealthy. Both have fingers in all sorts of political pies. And oil is convenient and tobacco is addictive - people have considerable psychological as well as financial investment in both.

I'm beginning to think that oil is far more addictive than tobacco. When George W told us that we had to kick our oil addiction (the only thing he ever said worth remembering perhaps) most people took it as a kind of typical W 'mis-spoke' metaphor but it is gaining traction. W knew addiction when he saw it. He'd been there. We are turning our planet into a massive degraded flophouse for oil addicts who need our fix come hot hell or high water. Just look at photographer Edward Burtynsky's latest exhibit, OIL.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:52:55 UTC | #913070

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 24 by Mr DArcy

A previous poster said that the WSJ was owned by Murdoch and a Saudi royal. If true, that wouild explain the slant of the article, especially as the WSJ had previously turned down an article signed by 255 climate scientists putting the opposite POV.

But this is just an opinion piece. Don't bother with the science, - just raise enough doubts to keep the illiterate on board!

What do these people think happens to all the man made CO2 pumped into the atmosphere?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:15:09 UTC | #913076

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 25 by Alan4discussion

Comment 17 by Border Collie

In my business, I tell people all the time that they don't have to believe or accept one word I say and that the market will educate them. It's a much harder lesson, but, hey, whatever. Likewise, the deniers don't have to believe or accept one word of science. The climate will educate them whether they like it or not. I'm afraid that the climate will be much more unforgiving in its educational approach, however.

.. .. ... As the people who ignored the warning about hurricanes in New Orleans found out.

The National Geographic predicted the depth of the water in the New Orleans flood, a year before it happened.

Climatologists predict that powerful storms may occur more frequently this century, while rising sea level from global warming is putting low-lying coasts at greater risk. "It's not if it will happen," says University of New Orleans geologist Shea Penland. "It's when." http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/text2.html - Yet just as the risks of a killer storm are rising, the city's natural defenses are quietly melting away. From the Mississippi border to the Texas state line, Louisiana is losing its protective fringe of marshes and barrier islands faster than any place in the U.S.

Nat Geog gives more background information on the on-going problem here. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/08/new-orleans/new-orleans-text

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:19:26 UTC | #913080

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 26 by Border Collie

So many fantastic comments ...

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:41:52 UTC | #913086

Daryl 's Avatar Comment 27 by Daryl

I also just finished Michael Lewis' excellent books on the meltdown (Boomerang, which gives the global view; The Big Short gives the American slant). He opines, and has some medical evidence, that much of the borrowing crisis has to do with the inner reptile core of our brains; that we are actually having problems because we, who evolved in an era of too little (which is I guess why we evolved the way we did), now had the opportunity to have too much. That as a result, our brain wiring has difficulty in dealing with the pleasurable short term (borrowing money, or in this case, dealing with climate change) and offsetting the more difficult long term (and what do we hear? Don't touch my pension funds, give me a raise now, too expensive to deal with climate change, but I LOVE my SUV).

So who are the believes in climate change? The same who are not believers in this one particular book of whatever language or denomination that has all the answers. It will sound silly, but I will bet as a group we are a bit fitter, thinner, more prone to be new technology adopters, and have what Richard Feynman had as the pleasure of finding things out. It's not handed to us, we actually have to find it, to prove it. And what if it's not proven? Well, we will have had the pleasure of finding out what did NOT work. Rupert Murdoch's drive, as are the right wingnut ilk, is to maximize personal power and wealth. In allowing climate change in, you have no choice but to let a bit of religion out; of not handing even more money to oil companies; of ceding some authority to groups that are nothing but sceptical of the right wing. So they have no choice but to yell loud. And since (as John Brunner wrote so well many decades ago): The sheep look up.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:49:38 UTC | #913090

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 28 by Alan4discussion

Comment 18 by PERSON

One can discuss what those limits are, but to state that there are none, or none that matter is lunacy. IIRC, even Pinker makes this kind of strange assertion. It seems to be a staple of conventional economic thinking, as well as the extremists one might expect such things of.

The "endless banking boom" (not forgetting the bust "abolished" by Gordon Brown), comes to mind!

Everlasting growth on a finite planet!

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:39:30 UTC | #913105

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 29 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:35:39 UTC | #913117

UGene's Avatar Comment 30 by UGene

Liberal "scientists" apparently are the new priesthood. Anything they say is not be questioned - or else. Independent thought on anything they say is to be shunned and ridiculed, the same way the theory of Continental Drift was.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:41:51 UTC | #913119