[Newsbot]

Title: Climate Change: Concocting the �Consensus�
Topic: Environment
Written By: Milton
Date: Tuesday, August 24 at 15:01
by Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research, August 21, 2010
 
The debate is over! There is a consensus! The time for discussion has ended and the need for action is paramount!

We have all heard this before.

Yet it is important to keep in mind that these types of statements are inherently inimical to scientific inquiry; the debate and discussion should never be over. As new information surfaces, it should be taken into consideration, analyzed, discussed, debated and ultimately it will aid in the advancement of knowledge and scientific understanding. To declare the debate as over is to declare information and knowledge as irrelevant. Progress has never come from holding onto antiquated ideas. The attainment of knowledge does not come from the refusal to reflect. Climate change is no exception. In light of events of the past year, it has become clear that there was a concerted effort on the part of a small clique of elite scientists at the UN and in supporting institutions, governments and universities to concoct the climate change “consensus” to pressure governments and public opinion into supporting the political, economic and social agenda of elites.
read more

[gina]

This Is How You Fuel a Community of Climate Deniers
Start with big oil companies, and the money and connections flow.

By Donald Gutstein, 10 Dec 2009, TheTyee.ca
http://thetyee.ca/Books/2009/12/10/ClimateDeniers/

[Milton]

What exactly are you tying to say? Big oil companies stand to make billions from carbon credits and carbon capture grants from various levels of government. The Alberta government just threw 2 billion dollars at the oil companies for carbon capture bullshit. Meantime there is no evidence that was credibly gathered to show that global warming exists. The IPCC has been shown to be corrupt.

Lets see now, if I was a rat bastard oil company exec who was poised to make billions from carbon capture schemes, would I hire some dumb hack to write stupid stories about the oil industry being as clean as big pharma or big agribiz. Refresh my memory about what a good job Obama is doing overseeing the gulf oil spill.

[RickW]

Quote:

Refresh my memory about what a good job Obama is doing overseeing the gulf oil spill.

He must be. All the "experts" are saying the oil is disappearing.

[Marcarc]

There are several good books on how the climate change denying industry works. It's not true about science and 'debate' when important issues are at state. Science made the determination that smoking causes cancer. There is no more 'debate' on the issue, even though research is still being done. Climate change is CONSTANTLY being investigated, modified, and analyzed, what hasn't changed is the need to make changes and the central theme-we have to do something to combat it.
It's disheartening to see Vivelecanada, a site which used to be about public policy, turn into a right wing conspiratorial website.

[Marcarc]

And actually, to quickly get into the debate yet again, the evidence is overwhelming, and the IPCC hasn't nearly been shown to be corrupt-there were a couple of issues, but thats it. Oil companies and industry in general hate regulations, this is very evident in the US, where the Koch brothers have invested over 100 million in right wing groups to organize tea party activities and support candidates. This is no secret. Anybody that thinks oil companies WANT regulations is delusional.

[Milton]

Oh, its climate change now is it? What happened to global warming?
Explain how carbon credits are going to clean up pollution.
You obviously didn't read the article I posted because you haven't addressed any of the problem areas that the climate alarmists have attempted to hide or erase.
What is this "the debate is over" crap, show the evidence for the case that global warming is happening and that it is being caused by humankinds activities on this planet.
I particularly liked your attempt to conflate those who question fabricated evidence as being right wingers.

[Marcarc]

It's climate change because many scientists complained that 'global warming' didn't accurate reflect what was going on. Climate change encapsulates severe weather, while global warming just makes it sound as though things might heat up a bit, and those in developed countries like canada would say "great!". With melting polar caps there is also the probability that temperatures can sometimes get colder, so while the globe IS warming, the climate is doing all kinds of crazy things. The problem was mainly that critics were so narrow minded that every time there was a cold day in January they'd shout "ha, its not warmer".

Carbon credits work the same way as other credits have in the past, just go look it up. Acid rain in north america was primarily solved by a similar system, and carbon credits are already working in the EU.

I didn't read the entire article because its the same old tripe we see over and over. An attempt to have endless debates about minutaie in order to make it 'seem' like its far too complex to have any kind of scientific consensus.

The 'debate is over' is an attempt to combat the billions of dollars that petroleum and chemical companies have sunk into 'research institutes' and even grassroots organizations to combat the scientific consensus in favour of 'doing nothing'. Otherwise, the option is to simply keep polluting the planet. In fact, the AIMS of climate 'alarmists' are so worthwhile in themselves, in reducing pollution, creating fairer tax policies, creating new economies, that 'denyers' can be seen to be simply corporate pawns.

There is TONS of evidence out there, none of it 'fabricated'. There are those who will argue endlessly that there is no theory of relativity, despite there being tons of evidence.

I'm glad you liked it, but the most typical definition of 'right wingers' are those who argue against government intervention, libertarians being the most 'right wing'. In this, that is exactly what denyers espouse-having no government involvement and letting corporations do whatever they want. That's 'right wing', and calling anybody who disagrees an 'alarmist' is no different. Every time I remember to look at the site there seems to be yet another of these stories, and very little else. Years ago it was quite active with quite a bit of debate and even political activism. Anyway, whatever you believe you don't need to worry, Canada's economy is so centred around natural resources that we've become an international pariah on climate change, and there is little evidence that this will change unless the US does. So the debate is moot.

[RickW]

As well, there are tons of people "out there" who believe in "creation science" too, as well as the world being flat & only 6,000 years old...........

But I think the main thrust of the climate change deniers (not the ones who have something to gain by trumping the IPCC findings), is whether the current warming trend is caused or augmented by we humans. It would seem logical that dumping several thousands of tons of CO2, etc. more than can be assimilated, must have an effect.

[Milton]

Marcarc, you didn't read the article and you admitted it. You are just trolling.

[Marcarc]

I don't think you understand what 'trolling' actually means. Actually, I'd suggest its the ARTICLE that is trolling. Arguing whether its human caused or 'natural' is a hypothetical argument that ignores policy, so there's no real purpose to it. Post an article saying the chicken came first, no matter how many arguments there are, its still moot. It's ironic though to see somebody chastise another poster for belittling the debate as 'right wing' and then resort to calling somebody a troll. As said, the debate here was about denying climate change, not the specifics of the article. There are ten million specifics to any argument about climate change, I've no intention on going through them all, just like I don't care whether the chicken or egg came first. And judging from the lack of comment, not many others care either.

[stemmer]

Milton wrote:

What exactly are you tying to say? Big oil companies stand to make billions from carbon credits and carbon capture grants from various levels of government. The Alberta government just threw 2 billion dollars at the oil companies for carbon capture bullshit. Meantime there is no evidence that was credibly gathered to show that global warming exists. The IPCC has been shown to be corrupt.

Lets see now, if I was a rat bastard oil company exec who was poised to make billions from carbon capture schemes, would I hire some dumb hack to write stupid stories about the oil industry being as clean as big pharma or big agribiz. Refresh my memory about what a good job Obama is doing overseeing the gulf oil spill.

Exactly, the existence of climate change is to the benefit of big oil companies... I think we should be investigating the connection and funding of Al Gore and climate change to the energy companies....

[Milton]

You are right stemmer.

[RickW]

Quote:

I think we should be investigating the connection and funding of Al Gore and climate change to the energy companies....

But (as was said in Ghostbusters) who ya gonna call (on to do the investigating)?
Can't expect government (of any stripe) to do a credible job - they are all in the pockets of the people with the most bucks (and that would be Big Oil among a few others).

[Marcarc]

Actually, go DO that. The money trail proves exactly the opposite. Go look at the Globalization Institute in Poland, or one of any of over 500 'research' organizations that are the main climate change deniers. ALL of these have been bankrolled by oil companies and other major polluters. Other big spenders include the Atlas Economic Research foundation that awards $100,000 to any group willing to present a 'study'. Atlas has spend over 30 million, and gets most of its money from Phillip Morris. NONE of these support carbon trading programs.

Again, if you like, FORGET the investigating. Pretend you can't 'believe' anything-and look at the policies. Virtually all the policies advanced to combat climate change are good for communities, good for the environment, good for workers. Who they AREN"T as good for are the hugest conglomerates.

As for Alberta, that points out the problem, this is a province where even the mention of changing the royalty structure a little bit had the industry up in arms and claiming they would leave Alberta for the rats if they changed the profit motive one iota. In Nigeria, Shell still burns TONS of natural gas-just because its cheaper. Canada is throwing money at the oil companies because thats the only way anything gets done. It took years for companies to stop burning natural gases in Alberta until the government subsidized developing natural gas terminals and pipelines. Once that was done they were ecstatic.

But man, if you actually think that oil companies stand to make billions off of carbon credits when all they have done is shovel millions into PR arguing the opposite, well, thats a view that simply can't be argued through common sense.