20 June - Castigating the Frame | Climate 'Denial'
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 1:21:12 AM
I still see the old mantra circulating endlessly - so when I saw an article attacking the propaganda pushing Climate Change as a rework of Anthropogenic Global Warming, I immediately thought of the campaign to lead people to war in Iraq....or demonize Iran ( the U.S. suspects ! and the NPT TRAP ) and Ahmadinejad ( Holocaust Denier ! with a supposed shudder at the notion of actually studying what happened in WWII Germany ), which was what my Dec 1 2009 post here was about...a link between that politicization and NWO plans.
But I can't post my response on the article's website : too long. So here it is.
I'm not a scientist. Perhaps that clarifies why I am more ready to snort and say "Bollocks" when somebody - no matter how prestigious - tells me he can scientifically prove he can foretell the future.
As to the power of the establishment to define views in ways of their choice in an era or media monopoly.....the power of the Catholic Church to persecute Galileo comes to mind.
Always we see the lead off "scientists agree." And then, with a little digging, comes the revelation that special interests pervert the public arguments. I'm thinking of an $80 million 'clean coal' campaign a couple of years back, designed to affect U.S. perceptions when setting U.S. energy policy as only one example.
What is a 'Denier' ? Actually, the interesting question is "Why would you call someone a 'Denier'...preferably howled in great distress and anguish for the moral shortcomings of such". That is a technique to pervert discussion and channel it into pre-chosen paths. You do it by defining the terms of allowable discussion and dictating the moral result as yours. The Rand Corporation - the U.S. 'Defense' industries' policy guru - can tell you all about it.
Kudos to your argument by the way. Obviously, as an admitted nonscientist, I will not be tempted to confuse modeling exercises attempting to make hypothetical forecasts in the fashion Dr. Plimer so entertainingly derides.
He's partisan ! He's over-the-top !
He's fun. And exaggeration seems to be at the root of the problem of perception. That was what science writer Dr. John v. Kampen said quite some time back as I outlined early December 2009. The links are at a partially reconstructed web page that had vanished due to posting malfunction. I blog at http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com and the file is listed in the Topical Index as 'Climate in Contention' http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2010/03/climate.html
As to what scientists think, then
They are kinder than I...who concede no proofs that I have seen demonstrated which show co2 to be a greenhouse gas whatsoever, located in a system open to perturbation by unknown and immeasurable factors....not a closed model at all.
( I need to chase down where I put a link where cosmic rays were the dominant factor in solar gain which puts us in a warming period because of our position in the Sun's galactic orbit...as demonstrated by geological records. )
Here comes the evil denier monster
* Rowan Dean
* June 16, 2011 12:00AM
WHEN you've run out of positive things to say in advertising, the easiest trick is to make up a monster. The uglier and more repulsive the better.
Think of toilet cleaning ads. Take those imaginary, microscopic, horrible, slimy things that make guttural noises and squirm disgustingly as they salivate over your ceramic bowl.
Animation and special effects studios have a lot of fun designing and creating these grotesque visual metaphors with which to terrify the consumer, to the delight of advertising executives and their clients alike. Ugly monsters allow you to avoid having to spell out your own positive selling points, if indeed you have any.
It would appear the advocates of the carbon tax have cottoned on to this trick. Through a relentless and combined effort they have created their very own grotesque creature to terrify us. The hideous "climate change denier" is as ugly and repulsive as any toilet germ gremlin.
Comments followed. Here are links culled from them
PRESS RELEASE: Potential of Renewable Energy Outlined in Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources
IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke
"I, for one, was keenly interested in how IPCC got to its potential 80%. Unfortunately, in keeping with execrable IPCC practices, the supporting documents for the Renewables Study were not made available at the time of the original announcement. (Only the Summary for Policy-makers was made available at the time.) This showed one worrying aspect of the announcement. The report was based on 164 ‘scenarios’ and the ‘up to 80%” scenario in the lead sentence of their press release was not representative of their scenarios, but the absolute top end. This sort of press release is not permitted in mining promotions and it remains a mystery to me why it is tolerated in academic press releases or press releases by international institutions. "
PRESS RELEASE: NEW BOOK THROWS A HAIL MARY PASS TO GET AMERICA OFF THE BENCH AND BACK IN THE GAME
"Merchants of Doubt": How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
Santer is an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison Project, an enormous international project to store the results of climate models from around the globe, distribute them to other researchers, and compare the models, both with real-world data and with each other. Over the past twenty years, he and his colleagues have shown that our planet is warming—and in just the way you would expect if green house gases were the cause.
Santer’s work is called “fingerprinting”—because natural climate variation leaves different patterns and traces than warming caused by green house gases. Santer looks for these fingerprints. The most important one involves two parts of our atmosphere: the troposphere, the warm blanket closest to the Earth’s surface, and the stratosphere, the thinner, colder part above it. Physics tells us that if the Sun were causing global warming—as some skeptics continue to insist—we’d expect both the troposphere and the stratosphere to warm, as heat comes into the atmosphere from outer space. But if the warming is caused by green house gases emitted at the surface and largely trapped in the lower atmosphere, then we expect the troposphere to warm, but the stratosphere to cool.
Santer and his colleagues have shown that the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling. In fact, because the boundary between these two atmospheric layers is in part defined by temperature, that boundary is now moving upward. In other words, the whole structure of our atmosphere is changing. These results are impossible to explain if the Sun were the culprit. It shows that the changes we are seeing in our climate are not natural.
( It shows that, does it ? Damn, you're smart. It completely leaves any doubt that you know whether you're punched or bored in the dust. There's a word for that : Hubris
The file for institutional media control is Perception Alteration
Roy Spencer - Global Warming
Truth is that Garnaut is partisan
ROSS Garnaut has the policy paradigm, and a lot else, completely wrong on the Gillard government's proposed carbon tax. He sees it as a battle between the forces of economic reform, in the tradition of the Hawke, Keating and early Howard governments, and the old pre-Hawke, anti-reform days.
This is dead wrong. Rather, the Gillard government is trying to move Australia's political economy towards a European model.
Like the US, we understand that wealth is not a given but has to be created, whereas Europeans assume national wealth can always be further taxed and regulated in the interests of some allegedly moralistic cause.
Nowhere in the world does Australia suffer any serious reputational damage from its climate policies or its asylum-seeker policies, except for small parts of the European elites.
Beyond Zero Emissions
And because it was just sitting there
Climate change panel in hot water again over 'biased' energy report
The world's foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt.
Mark Lynas, a climate change writer in favour of using nuclear and renewables to combat global warming, said: "It is stretching credibility for the IPCC to suggest that a richer world with two billion more people will use less energy in 2050. Campaigners should not be employed as lead authors in IPCC reports."