Climate Change: Here's what a lie really looks like

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

All true, whell. You caught me but does this mean you've revised your standards for authoritativeness? After all, the principle sources in that op ed were previous posts from a blogger.

And, regardless of where the article is positioned, it's an op ed. I mean, read the fucking thing! Careful use of quotation marks around words like "adjustments", putting loaded language like "fiddling" right in the "biggest science scandal ever" right in the head and referring to a respected and accomplished scientist as a "fanatic".

Of course, none of this is in the least bit surprising. After all, The Telegraph is the UK equivalent to the Moonie Times.

Scientists behaving in scandalous manner

[Boreas]

I want to remind people that, several years ago here, I said that the underlying reason behind all the efforts to discredit the valid science behind climate change is that the plutocrats want it to occur. Nobody seemed to take it seriously.

The simple fact is there are fortunes to be made through climate change, not least with regard to extractive industries like coal, oil and minerals. Removing the ice from the land and sea makes exploiting these resources feasible.

By the way, did anyone notice that Russia is in the process of militarizing the Arctic? Why do you suppose they'd want to do that?

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

Scientists behaving in scandalous manner

Are you capable of contributing anything of substance?

Anything at all?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I want to remind people that, several years ago here, I said that the underlying reason behind all the efforts to discredit the valid science behind climate change is that the plutocrats want it to occur. Nobody seemed to take it seriously.

The simple fact is there are fortunes to be made through climate change, not least with regard to extractive industries like coal, oil and minerals. Removing the ice from the land and sea makes exploiting these resources feasible.

By the way, did anyone notice that Russia is in the process of militarizing the Arctic? Why do you suppose they'd want to do that?

John

Because they know that there are fossil fuels to be harvested from that region. Fossil fuels below arctic ice. Which suggests that the region where fossil fuels exist must have been teaming with life at some point in the earth's history. Then climate change occurred - with no industrial smoke stacks and no SUV's anywhere to be found. Wonder how that happened?

In the meantime were moving forward with an energy strategy that is little more than a wish list, while Russia, China and others take steps to secure their national energy interests. Our energy strategy is informed by dubious "science" and divided by partisan politics. We are our own worst enemy in this regard.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

No, yesterday was a blog, which is a bit lower on the pecking order of journalism. As you yourself were quick to point out yesterday, these are still facts. In this case, its also not an editorial. It is in the "News" section.

Why am I not surprised his sole source 'Homewood' is a science denying blogger?

This isn't journalism no matter how he dresses it up.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Of course, none of this is in the least bit surprising. After all, The Telegraph is the UK equivalent to the Moonie Times.

I'll grant you that The Telegraph is more of a tabloid, but such is the state of print journalism in much of the UK, and the U.S. is moving fast in that direction. However, once your rant abates you might note that the author of the article in the OP has been following this for a while, posted several stories on it. Also, the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Because they know that there are fossil fuels to be harvested from that region. Fossil fuels below arctic ice. Which suggests that the region where fossil fuels exist must have been teaming with life at some point in the earth's history. Then climate change occurred - with no industrial smoke stacks and no SUV's anywhere to be found. Wonder how that happened?

In the meantime were moving forward with an energy strategy that is little more than a wish list, while Russia, China and others take steps to secure their national energy interests. Our energy strategy is informed by dubious "science" and divided by partisan politics. We are our own worst enemy in this regard.

Talk about specious arguments.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Because they know that there are fossil fuels to be harvested from that region. Fossil fuels below arctic ice. Which suggests that the region where fossil fuels exist must have been teaming with life at some point in the earth's history. Then climate change occurred - with no industrial smoke stacks and no SUV's anywhere to be found. Wonder how that happened?

Not the way you think. Things move. Check out plate tectonics. Also, south wasn't always south and north wasn't always north. Check out polar drift and geomagnetic reversal.

In the meantime were moving forward with an energy strategy that is little more than a wish list, while Russia, China and others take steps to secure their national energy interests. Our energy strategy is informed by dubious "science" and divided by partisan politics. We are our own worst enemy in this regard.

So, you agree that climate change is real after all! Good, whell! There just might be hope for you after all.

.......... nah!

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Also, the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

Neither new nor proven and often, as with the "East Anglia University scandal", totally debunked.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

I'll grant you that The Telegraph is more of a tabloid,..... the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

At least you concede the point that the Telegraph is little more than a rag better suited to grocery store check out lines.

Your other point is illustrative that PT Barnum was correct in observations re. society at large.