Climate Change Denial: The Smoking Gun

Is there a legal right to shout “hoax” on a burning planet? It is well documented that corporate interests fund a widespread campaign of lies and misinformation about climate change. Worse, they have been enjoying considerable success just as they did with tobacco. Small wonder since they are employing the same tactics, even some of the same shills posing as climate scientists. Is it their legal right to do so? And what can be done about it?

‘Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ [linking smoking with disease] that exists in the mind of the general public. ”

Tobacco company Brown and Williamson internal document, 1969

Greenpeace recently released it’s report Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science – A Brief History of Attacks on Climate Science, Climate Scientists and the IPCC. This report adds to the already considerable documentation of industry propaganda such as Jame’s Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming and Exxon Secret’s and the tobacco campaign links (Where there’s smoke, the climate change Denial lobby).

At Grist you can watch the Rachel Maddow segment that talks about the Greeenpeace report, focusing on the involvement of Koch Industies as well as an interview with Hoggan. Maddow looks at the the linkages with other right wing campaigns through bogus grassroots “think tanks” such as Americans for Prosperity which was also involved in the anti-health reform campaign and many others. As Maddow documents Americans for Prosperity is anything but a grassroots organization.

It was in 1950 that Richard Doll documented the link between smoking and lung cancer. It did not take long to provide overwhelming evidence of the lethal effects of tobacco smoking, yet industry campaigns managed to delay action for almost half a century. Now that the industrialized world is making some effort to curb tobacco smoking the industry is expanding in the developing world.

In the 20th century smoking killed 100 million people . Climate change promises to be much more deadly in the 21st century.

Let’s be clear here. We are not talking about the right of corporations and individuals to voice dissenting opinions. This is not an ad hominem attack meant to cast doubt on their arguments based on who funded it. We know for a fact that their claims are false. Just as the tobacco lobby does and did, they are knowingly and deliberately disseminating lies for the purposes of personal profit. Lies that will kill many hundreds of millions of human beings.

Yet it is equally true that if we are to save humanity we have to consider why we are doing so. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and not one to be dismissed lightly. To suggest saving people only to have them live under totalitarian dictatorships is a Devil’s bargain at best.

If the Deniers are using the tobacco model and techniques for their lies, then the appropriate model for legal action against oil companies and their executives is almost certainly the tobacco lawsuits. Here too we find corporate decision makers deliberately lying and funding doubt about the science in order to continue profiting even though it does great public harm. In fact it is no accident that many of the more prominent climate Deniers like Steve Milloy, Fred Singer and Thomas Gale Moore were also funded by big tobacco to do cancer denial before they became climate change Deniers.

In the Litigation Against Tobacco Companies the courts found that the defendants were liable because the “Defendants have falsely denied, distorted and minimized the significant adverse health consequences of smoking for decades.”

The criteria was “The scientific and medical community’s knowledge of the relationship of smoking and disease evolved through the 1950s and achieved consensus in 1964. However, even after 1964, Defendants continued to deny both the existence of such consensus and the overwhelming evidence on which it was based.”

So they ARE criminally liable if they continue to knowingly spread misinformation after the scientific community has achieved consensus. There is scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and there has been for 15 to 20 years.

Insomuch as the corporate Deniers claim that they have investigated the climate science thoroughly and that there is no significant evidence it seems to me they have lied themselves into a corner. Either they are lying about having examined the science or they are lying about what the science says, but either way they are lying. This makes them liable to legal action.

We don’t have half a century to waste tolerating these disinformation campaigns. This is not a question of upholding freedom of speech, it is a matter of corporate and individual criminality. The value of these reports is not in casting doubt on the Denier arguments; those have been known all along to be nonsense. The value is that the reports present an opportunity to hold the guilty parties responsible for their crimes, and to end the disinformation campaigns with legal penalties appropriate to the magnitude of those crimes.

This is not what we should do, it is what we must do … and soon.

Photo Credit: Glamour is not for me… by movimente

email
Share

68 Responses to Climate Change Denial: The Smoking Gun

  1. +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Faust_Eddie
    April 5, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Chick in ad looks much hotter than global warming….

  2. Pingback:

    +2 Vote -1 Vote +1uberVU - social comments

  3. +15 Vote -1 Vote +1klem
    April 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Blah blah blah snore… The planet is fine, just look out the window. It’s no warmer than last year at this time. Go back to sleep.

  4. -29 Vote -1 Vote +1nom
    April 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    2010 global temperatures: “For the year to date, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest January-February period on record. The worldwide ocean surface temperature for February 2010 was the second warmest on record for February. The seasonal (December 2009 – February 2010) worldwide ocean surface temperature was also the second warmest on record. In the Southern Hemisphere, both the February 2010 average temperature for land areas and the Hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined), represented the warmest February on record.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=2

    • +19 Vote -1 Vote +1PAH
      April 6, 2010 at 11:42 am

      Whatever happend to being skeptical of government? Good lord, NOAA data is as suspect as NASA in this whole debacle. You should try to open your mind and look at information on both sides of the debate. Oh, I’m sorry, that’s right the debate is over. What a joke!!!!

    • +19 Vote -1 Vote +1Interglacial John
      April 6, 2010 at 12:45 pm

      These are manipulated numbers. NASA, NOAA and CRU have all been caught red-handed fudging the data. They like their little “tricks” such as removing temperature stations in rural and higher latitudinal areas. 1934 is the warmest year on record, unless you go with James Hansen’s contrived data. Plus, if ocean temperatures are as high as they claim, why then is sea ice near its highest seasonal average and why is there a photo of the USS Skate, at the North Pole on March 17th 1957, in open water. The more one knows about our climate, the less one is inclined to buy this AGW garbage. I have spent over 30 years studying our planet, and with each passing year I grow less and less patient with the fraud being perpetrated by greedy “scientists”. Who by the way, receive nearly 3500 times more funding than sceptics (aka, real scientists). If the alarmists were honest, they would admit warming is beneficial to life on this planet, but they are not. While they carry on about disproven calamities, they fail to warn us of the real climatological danger, the next Ice Age.

    • +12 Vote -1 Vote +1bunch43
      April 6, 2010 at 4:23 pm

      the earth is almost 70 percent surface area covered in water. how many temp gauges are there to decide the actual surface temp?? Oh you say, satellites are covering it………..guess again Watson? they cover less than 1 percent of the surface of the oceans. then we have the land weather stations and gauges……….most are not of any scientific value and yet our AGW scientists are trying to use them and massaging the data to try to account for the discrepancies they know exist. this is not science, it is a joke… how far back do you think these fellows have been keeping these temp records. Gee, these are the same guys that said that 1998 was warmest on record and factually, 1934 was the warmest. wake up and get all the data you can get from all the sources and you will see that this planet warms and cools all on its own with little or no help from us. AGW is a method to redistribute money from rich countries to poor countries………………..read the UN papers on Global governance and taxes.

  5. +30 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
    April 6, 2010 at 7:56 am

    All the people who don’t buy global warming scam are deniers? We the people now see all lies behind the global warming scam, you global warming extremists are now crying and whining like babies. The truth will always win, just remember that and majority of the people are fools.

  6. +10 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
    April 6, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Correction:
    “The truth will always win, just remember that and majority of the people are not fools.”

    The chic in the ad is way hotter the global warming scam.

  7. +24 Vote -1 Vote +1John Carter
    April 6, 2010 at 10:20 am

    It is the people who are unconvinced by the lies and manipulated climate data from researchers who have forgotten how science should be done.
    The believers should reassess their values and understand that they have allowed themselves to be fooled and manipulated by devious and unprincipled fraudsters. Snake oil salesmen is a very apt term for these people.
    Rather than desperately seeking a scapegoat for the collapse of the AGW scam, look instead at the catalogue of errors and exaggerations built upon the foundation of lies and corruption.
    There is where you will find the culprit.

  8. +20 Vote -1 Vote +1beware of fascism
    April 6, 2010 at 10:21 am

    and what’s next? Ban people from praising fast cars, as they contribute to global warming?

    Ban any idea or view that you don’t like?

    Very worrying, you need to examine your principles, IMHO.

  9. +29 Vote -1 Vote +1Ed_B
    April 6, 2010 at 10:27 am

    As a former “warmist” that turned into a “denier”, my change was based up spending 500+ hours reading published papers, etc.. I found the lies, deceptions, fraud, personal attacks put out by the gloabl warming scientists to be stunning in frequency and scope. The IPCC reports are so factually incorrect, that it can only be described as a big fraud, a big con.

    That anyone can read J. Hoggan’s Climate Cover-Up without getting physically ill is beyond me. He is a paid propagandist, and won’t even allow an open discussion on his web site. Rachel Maddow is just a do- gooder dupe.

  10. +12 Vote -1 Vote +1wws
    April 6, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Seig Heil, GruppenFuhrer Kaulbars! Das Volk mussen be suppressed with all their damnable ideologies of free speech and other such dangerous nonsense! We the Master Race must tell them what they must do because the schweinhunds cannot be trusted to know their own good! Seig Heil!!!!

  11. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1foolmeonce
    April 6, 2010 at 11:15 am

    “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    - Club of Rome,
    premier environmental think-tank,
    consultants to the United Nations
    http://green-agenda.com/

  12. +15 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
    April 6, 2010 at 11:38 am

    It’s used to be Mother Nature/Act Of God, now it’s everything that’s happening under the sky is causing global warming. These global warming extremists are delusional, they need a straight jacket. Hooray for we the people for exposing this global warming hoax.

    • +13 Vote -1 Vote +1Brian Carter
      April 6, 2010 at 12:32 pm

      You got that right jack. It was We The People, who supported the climate scientists discovering the fraud. Ordinary people stood by them and helped get the word out. In some cases, i.e. Anthony Watts and his legion of volunteers documenting surface station sighting issues, the common people themselves discovered the fraud and gave scientists the heads up.

      Truth will triumph and so will We The People.

  13. +24 Vote -1 Vote +1David Becker, Ph.D.
    April 6, 2010 at 11:53 am

    At this point in the debate, it is amply clear that peer reviewed published observations in a large variety of fields have shown the computer models used to predict global warming are wrong. Couple this with poor data collection procedures for global temperatures (poor station siting, bias in data selection), and extraordinarily suspect data handling methods, and one ends up with pathological science. We should always keep an open mind to improvements in climate science, but the current science is just awful, embarrassing to scientists like myself. Incidentally, in my opinion, any one who uses the word “deniers” in this context is a low-life.

  14. +19 Vote -1 Vote +1friendofgalileo
    April 6, 2010 at 11:55 am

    You say that corporate interests fund widespread campaigns and misinformation about climate change. Would those be the corporate interests who aim to profit from trading in carbon emissions?

    • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1bunch43
      April 6, 2010 at 4:50 pm

      you are wise quimo sabe!!

    • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Roald A
      April 6, 2010 at 7:49 pm

      Does anybody wonder about the group called Ozone Action (that John Passacantando brought into Greenpeace USA when he took over), and how it was bringing in around $1 million per year from 1998 to 2000? See the official IRS disclosure forms here: http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=iwave&npoId=474679

  15. +19 Vote -1 Vote +1David Harrington
    April 6, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Why would you ever fear debate and open robust discourse? Unless of course you case was built on feet of clay?

    • Vote -1 Vote +1bunch43
      April 6, 2010 at 4:51 pm

      perfectomundo……….

  16. +19 Vote -1 Vote +1Interglacial John
    April 6, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Co2 levels have been nearly 20 times higher in the past without causing calamities or reaching a “tipping point”. The IPCC report states that man produces, in all of his activities, only 3% of atmospheric CO2. CO2 makes up less than 5% of all greenhouse gases. This means man is responsible for less than .015% of all greenhouse gases. Now I know you alarmists are not all that great with math so let me state conversely that this means Gaia is responsible for 99.985% of atmospheric greenhouse gases. The Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is right now. If we actually study the climatalogical past of our planet (I have, it was my major), we find that warm periods are times of great biodiversity and abundance while cool periods are times of great hardship and extinction. Logic dictates there is nothing to fear. But alas, the alarmists (for the most part) are right-brain dominant and do not support their arguments with logic, but rather with emotion. They make great artists but lousy scientists.

    • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1bunch43
      April 6, 2010 at 4:56 pm

      does anyone remember the last Ice Age??? Me thinks most of us would prefer not to go through a new Ice Age anytime soon. Suggest the dudes on the coasts plan on very good mitigation strategies………………….Viva warming!!!!

    • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1P. Dirac
      April 7, 2010 at 3:03 am

      Co2 is only 0,03% to 0,04% of the atmosphere – 3-400 parts pr. million.

  17. +15 Vote -1 Vote +1Richard Wakefield
    April 6, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    “makes them liable to legal action.”

    Then please, launch such a legal action against these “deniers”. You won’t like the outcome when the Judge rules there is no evidence for AGW. But please, please, launch a legal action so we can get this biggest lie in all of history exposed.

  18. +13 Vote -1 Vote +14TimesAYear
    April 6, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    The analogy to shouting fire in a burning building fails – they are shouting fire in a building that’s not burning.

  19. +11 Vote -1 Vote +1Tregonsee
    April 6, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Freeman Dyson has written about the cultist nature of warmists. He is right, and that is what makes it pointless to even try and discuss the issue. Fortunately, the rest of the world is beginning to wake up to how flimsy the science is. With them, rational dialog is possible.

  20. +10 Vote -1 Vote +1heymike
    April 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    you need to do something about these comments. DELETE THEM NOW! YOU’RE LETTING THEIR VOICES BE HEARD! STOP THIS NOW!!!!!!

    THE LID IS BLOWING OFF!

    WE CAN’T HOLD IT TOGETHER MUCH LONGER!

    ahhhhhh meltiiiing…..

  21. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1MrCannuckistan
    April 6, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    The only time AGW will ever see the inside of a courtroom is when its outlandish claims are being challenged by rational people. The Consensus will not challenge people in court as their ‘evidence’ will not stand up to legal scrutiny. Climate models will not meet the legal definitions for model forecasting and the empirical evidence doesn’t prove causeation in the real world. To compare the AGW theory to a woman, one could quote the Northern Pikes, “She ain’t pretty she just looks that way.”

    MrC

  22. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1denis
    April 6, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    One of the respondents shows statistics that recent years were some of the hottest (since thermomenters). We’ve been warming since the 1800s, and not unusual since that follows several hundred years of cooling (the little ice age).
    Since we’ve been warming (until about 1995) that implies that the most recent years are the warmest. A slight increase is sufficient to make a recent year hottest. A slight decrease is not sufficient to remove one of the warm recent years from the “10 hottest”. BUT IT’s BEEN FLAT FOR 15 YEARS NOW!

    It helps to understand at least a little about the science – a climate tutorial is at the website below::

    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw

    • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Garth
      April 6, 2010 at 5:53 pm

      Actually, the long term warming trend has been underway since the 1600s, ie since before the Industrial Revolution.

      In the mid to late 1800s was when the average global temperature finally recovered (from the Little Ice Age) back to the long term average and then rose above it.

      While our CO2 must have some effect, clearly this is also part of a natural warming event just like the several that have already occurred in the 10-12,000 years of the current interglacial period.

      Hysterical and intellectually dishonest tactics like trying to link rational and reasoned scepticism about the nature of the data and what it means to the tobacco industry only goes to show how weak the alarmist position is.

  23. +10 Vote -1 Vote +1pat
    April 6, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    What a bunch of ignorant, vicious, left wing nonsense.

    • +8 Vote -1 Vote +1bunch43
      April 6, 2010 at 5:00 pm

      Pat…………………this is not politics, it is science…….OMG, you are right, it is politics and not science.

  24. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark
    April 6, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    There is recent troubling trend with those who want to save us from the Global Warming Monster. First Green-peas threatens physical violence against those who don’t wish to be saved, then this Mike clown wants to criminalize free thought. Why are they so determined to save us; to jail or even kill people in order to save them? Could it be because it has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with imposing an environmental totalitarianism?

  25. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Maurizio Morabito
    April 6, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Whoever mentions Richard Doll in support of the uber-Warmists has obviously not bothered to try to understand what Richard Doll has done. Epidemiology concerns the past, and can only be applied to stuff that has already happened. Doll’s results were overwhelming, with manifold increases in the risks of developing cancer and/or heart disease.

    That has little to do with “climate change”. In the very words of Mike Kaulbars, “climate change promises to be much more deadly in the 21st century”, i.e. it is a concern for the future. And as such, its effects cannot be ascertained in advance with any degree of certainty remotely resembling Richard Doll’s.

    I am also amazed that Mr Kaulbars has managed to write so much about the legal aspects of talking about climate change, without a single mention or link to the IPCC. Poor Pachauri, so much work done and now just of figure of fun or neglect.

  26. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1Sean McHugh
    April 6, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    I earlier counted twenty-five comments above and only one of them supported the hysterical article by Mike Kaulbars. Did he actually use his own name? Anyway, by Kaulbars’ logic, that’s 96% who have had grounding in lobbying for the tabacco industry and who are now being funded by Exxon. Hell, the whole article is so much about cigarettes that one would think that they must be the heat source for his Global Warming.

    So what is this guy smoking? Apart from the Global Warming debate having no more to do with the tobacco industry than it does with the hospitality industry, any financial assistance that the sceptics might receive wouldn’t even come to a thousandth of what the warmists receive – with all sorts of massive grants and financial benefits. And if they they get their political way, their industry will become greatly more lucrative, astronomically so. Those of us not in that industry, the vast majority, the normal population, would become significantly poorer.

    Kulbars would like to see us in court. Well bring it on. What would really be priceless is to have him in the stand testifying against us.

  27. -4 Vote -1 Vote +1Stephen Wille
    April 6, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    Piffle. You’re a NAZI

  28. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1gofer
    April 6, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Hottest decade..? .02% of 500 hundredths degree. Notice they never tell you the actual temps that make it the warmest, since they are so insanely low it would be laughable. Hottest year ever is more alarming than saying it was .06 degrees warmer. Which is way beyond any margins of error.

    There is no such thing a a global average temp. Some are going up at the same times others are going down. It makes no since and doesn’t reflect what is happening. If you set fire to one end of a board (112) and freeze the other (32), you get an average temp of 72 which doesn’t show the reality of what is actually happening. It means NOTHING! The little trick of showing an increase can be had by the lowest temp increasing not the maximum temp.

    Man’s contibution to the resident CO2 is .02 of 1%

    Control energy and you control everything including people and make A gabillion bucks doing so. Why do you think all the big banks are heavily invested in carbon trading and “green”…..but they need govt forcing to make it all happen.

  29. +10 Vote -1 Vote +1Garth
    April 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    And really, in what sense is the planet “burning?”

    What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

    It’s one of those things about alarmists that always intrigues me, ie the absolute certainty they have about something they clearly don’t even begin to understand.

    Mr Kaulbars obviously knows nothing about geology or the history of the planet. It is been significantly warmer than now in the past, (and indeed at the moment it is still relatively cool from such a historical perspective), and it didn’t “burn.”

    That’s why the Hockey Stick fraud had to be perpetrated – to try and give the false impression that something out of the ordinary occurred within the last hundred years or so.

    But again, if the alarmists have to indulge in scientific fraud to support their case, just how strong is that case?

  30. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1kdk33
    April 6, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    Scientific Consensus – my favorite.

    So, once scientists achieve a consensus, then we must act. To deny the consensus is… criminal. Because the consensus view has never been worng. Right,

    errr maybe not. But clearly sets a new low for intellectual integrity.

  31. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Pyeatte
    April 6, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    Greenpeace wants to inflict physical violence on AGW skeptics? Oh please, bring it on.
    Since your politicaly corrupted computer model predictions have been so insightful…maybe you should include Tarot cards in your databases to improve your outcomes.

  32. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
    April 6, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    All you incredible people thank you for taking the time to expose the global warming scam. Everyone of you is a hero to all taxpayers everywhere. Thank goodness for common sense.

  33. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Dave N
    April 6, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    I say bring on the legal action.. The alarmists will lose big time (mainly because the alarm is based around predictions and flaky correlations, not empirical evidence) and we’ll finally be able to put the hoax to rest

  34. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1Roald A
    April 6, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    I’ve personally met Fred Singer, he gave me some literature to distribute that was in a plastic grocery bag, and then asked me for a ride to the airport to save the cost of a cab fare. If he is funded big bucks by Exxon, I’d never have guessed it. So the next question is, if you cannot prove the funding corruption in general, or point to specific fabrications of science reports directed by oil/coal industry execs, what is your fallback position? Wouldn’t you have to go through his NIPCC 2009 Report http://www.nipccreport.org/ page by page pointing out in each of the 880 pages how all of the science papers cited in it are outright lies, in order to back up the accusations you make here?

  35. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1wonder doug
    April 6, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    You’re so trapped by the alarmist’s talking points you keep saying “Climate Change” yet you treat it as equivalent to “Global Warming”. What’s the ploy now – make people afraid of anything – change, warming, and cooling?
    ironic that the great leader (Obama be praised) promised CHANGE but now CHANGE is to be feared (if it’s the climate that changes).
    I’d love to see legal action, the alarmists would have to prove something. Next step: prosecute Al Gore for fraud.

  36. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark
    April 6, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    I think there is a reasonable solution to the Global Warming problem which I think will resolve the oftentimes fractious debate between Alarmists and whom they describe as Deniers.

    1) Global Warming believers are simply good religious people exercising their faith.

    2) Their faith has nothing to do with science. Science depends on proof and science doesn’t label holders of contradictory views as being “deniers”. That term falls entirely under a religious mindset next to religious terms like “heretic”.

    3)Although Global Warming believers have a core set of legends or a catechism, they lack a spiritual repository for their beliefs. Like the ancient pagans who believed in magical trees or rocks, they think Global Warming is actually real. This state is unevolved and unsophisticated but the norm of a nascent religion.

    4) The great religions place their beliefs in a spiritual realm which is separate from everyday reality. This a wonderful and practical adaptation to the needs of reality. In the spiritual realm good battles against the forces of evil. The perpetual battle gives helpful lessons to everyday people without harming them with the battle’s “collateral damage”. This is good for everyone.

    The solution:

    Declare Global Warming a religion and get sophisticated about it immediately. Have the Holy Gaia in spiritual battle against the devil CO2. Convert people. Pass on to people the teachable moments from this battle so they may learn. Erect environmental churches with solar roof panels and have a windmill where a cross should be. All good religions incorporate the deposed religion’s symbols. Paint them green.

    Western society has discarded Christianity as a practical fact. That leaves Islam and it will suffer the same fate in 700 years only because it’s 700 years younger than Christianity.

    This in no way gets around the basic human need for religion; something has to fill that void. The solution takes into account the danger of religions in the nascent stage, when the early adherents still think it’s real. Religion in this stage can do real damage; the Mayan civilization consumed its own and the Salem witch-trials came close to doing it here. Global Warming is in the same place now, it is poised to wreak destruction on a civilization.

    To be successful, Global Warming must move quickly to become a mainstream religion where all the battles and battle damage are moved to the spiritual realm. Otherwise a religion that destroys civilization destroys itself. Kind of like cancer.

    Tongue firmly placed in cheek.:-)

  37. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1P. Dirac
    April 7, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Interesting to see the uniformity on the comments – and in comments from the hundreds of articles published every week…….its typical that some 90-99% of the comments are very sceptical towards AGW.

    ….and please to you warmists – dont talk about climate change denial…..everybody knows the climate is changing so thats not an issue at all. What we DONT believe is that man is contributing significantly to climate change, less understand the basis for climate change.

  38. -15 Vote -1 Vote +1Green Marauder
    April 7, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Thank you for an insightful article.

    There are already laws in many countries that restrict hate speech and holocaust denial, so you are right that there should be laws to stop climate change denial.

    I would actually say climate change denial is far worse that holocaust denial. Holocaust denial denies a historic event that happened in the past, and can not be changed. Climate change denial however attempts to deny something that will happen in the future, and can be changed. Furthermore climate change will kill far more people than the holocaust, and the only people who don’t want to take action against are either misinformed, diluded, or blinded by greed and energy company funding.

    As to the comments, I find many of them shocking. It is wrong to compare the views in the article to fascism or Nazism. In fact, a much more accurate comparison would be to compare climate deniers to fascists:

    1. Holocaust denial is many practised by rightwingers (like climate denial)

    2. Holocaust denial has many other similarities to climate change denial.

    3. Hitler was a climate change denier. Yes I know we tend to focus on his crimes of starting WW2, oppressing people, and killing millions in the holocaust – but sometimes we forget one of his worst crimes of all: Blitzkrieg. All those Nazi tanks and planes were gas guzzling monsters, belching out CO2.

    • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
      April 7, 2010 at 6:46 am

      More bs from the extremists.

      • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Jack
        April 7, 2010 at 6:54 am

        The same b.s. from a different extremist. We the people taking our country back and the weather, too. You extremists can keep your discredited Mann hockey stick. Long live ClimateGate.

    • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Kay
      April 7, 2010 at 10:23 am

      Reductio ad Hiterum. It’s a fallacy of irrelevance. Comparing climate change skeptics to Hitler or Nazis doesn’t prove that your side is right. In fact, Hitler was an environmentalist–do we then say that environmentalism is evil?

    • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Justa Joe
      April 7, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      Marauder, your post almost seems like a put on. Either that or perhaps you’re the author’s ditzy girlfriend.

      1. Catastrophic AGW “denial” is in all probability not exclusive to so-called right wingers. Also nobody denies that there is a climate.

      3. The National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party (Nazis) were not so-called right wingers. They were leftist socialists as their name suggests. The armies of 3rd Reich (Wehrmacht, Waffen SS, etc) didn’t produce anymore CO2 emissions than their enemy counterparts in the USSR Red Army or the Allied armies. Using your bizarre “logic” the Red Army and the Allied armies were worse climate offenders because their respective armies were larger.

      In addition to being socialists the NAZIs were at the forefront of environmentalism, alternative fuels (it’s true look it up), and obviously population control all of which I’m sure are near and dear to thine own heart.

  39. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1FredR
    April 7, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Denial cuts both ways. Is there a legal right to shout “Fire!” in an empty lobby? You claim that the “deniers” claims are false – and yet you offered not one single piece of evidence of disprove them, and instead launched an extended ad-hominem attack on them based on allusions to the tobacco industry.

    If the deniers are so wrong – it should be easy to disprove them, right? If you need to resort to ad-hominems and obfuscation, then it really suggests that you have nothing to say and everything to deny about your claims.

  40. Vote -1 Vote +1Loco
    April 7, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Was that article about climate science???? I thought it was about tobacco!

  41. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1BTinNY
    April 7, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Green Marauder and the rest of the Climate Change Industry are hell bent on creating their idea of the perfect new green society, fashioned in their image of course. Their aim is to do it through the organization that claims the exclusive right to all violence in a given geographic area – gunvernment (yes, that’s intentionally spelled that way). All this is to be accomplished DESPITE the overwhelming evidence, from the 20th Century, of “Death by Government”. Over 200 Million people dead at the hands of their ‘rulers/overlords’ and “Green Marauder and the rest of the Climate Change Industry ” seek to give this institution historically unprecedented powers over everyone, via the regulation of a naturally occurring atmospheric trace gas that is essential to all life on earth.
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
    - C.S. Lewis

  42. +6 Vote -1 Vote +1Kay
    April 7, 2010 at 10:14 am

    The author writes: “In the Litigation Against Tobacco Companies the courts found that the defendants were liable because the “Defendants have falsely denied, distorted and minimized the significant adverse health consequences of smoking for decades.”

    The criteria was “The scientific and medical community’s knowledge of the relationship of smoking and disease evolved through the 1950s and achieved consensus in 1964. However, even after 1964, Defendants continued to deny both the existence of such consensus and the overwhelming evidence on which it was based.”

    So they ARE criminally liable if they continue to knowingly spread misinformation after the scientific community has achieved consensus. There is scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and there has been for 15 to 20 years.”"

    No, they are not criminally liable, and here’s why. The litigation against the tobacco companies actually had hard data and empirical observation to back up their assertions. The warmists have nothing except computer models, which don’t give us data at all. Let me say that again: COMPUTER MODELS DO NOT PRODUCE USABLE DATA AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS. Not to mention that the climate is a non-linear chaotic system and therefore models are useless anyway. We’re nowhere near having enough understanding of climate to be able to produce a model that is any way accurate.

    There is simply NO evidence that “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” is a problem. None. Zero. Zilch. And as far as that consensus goes, it doesn’t exist. How many scientists were originally skeptics and switched sides when faced with the loss of their grant money? It’s not a consensus if it involves coercion.

    And here’s the kicker. Even if it could be proven that man is responsible for climate change (an impossible task), you need to show why that’s a bad thing for us and the polar bears. Ever wonder why there’s more ecological diversity in the tropics than at the poles? Because it’s warmer there, duh. And if the polar bears were going to die, they would have done so already, considering that just in the last 5000 years it’s been a lot warmer than it is now. The Climatic Optimum was warmer than the Roman Warm Period, which was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than today.

    Warm=good. Cold=bad. More people die of disease and starvation in a cold period than in a warm one–it’s no coincidence that the Black Death hit just as the Little Ice Age was getting under way.

    GreenMarauder writes: “2. Holocaust denial has many other similarities to climate change denial.”

    You are one sick puppy, and I’m calling Godwin’s Law AND Reductio ad Hitlerum. If you don’t know what that is, look it up. When you’ve educated yourself, we’ll talk about it.

    The warmists are so illogical you could drive a Mack truck though the holes in their arguments. And this from supposedly educated people.

  43. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1snorbertzangox
    April 7, 2010 at 10:18 am

    I love posting information that exposes the weaknesses in the IPCC claims. Mike Kaulbars claims to have information about organizations that will pay skeptics to do what I have been doing for free for several years. If you would be so kind, Mike, please provide me with contact information so that I can receive part of the lucre that you claim is available.

    You claim that cigarette smoking killed 100 million persons during the 20th century. That is about one-third of the number of deaths attributable to the Greenie-sponsored and bogus ban of DDT silnce 1972. Shall we sue those perpetrators too?

    • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Kay
      April 7, 2010 at 10:54 am

      And how about the push by Greenpeace in the UK to block aid to Africa for coal-fired electricity, saying that the risk to the climate is greater than the benefit to poor people having electricity?

      • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1snorbertzangox
        April 7, 2010 at 1:28 pm

        The Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) says the behavior of Greenpeas and other radical activists who oppose development of African resources is “ecological imperialism”, a name that I find apt.

  44. +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Neal Kaye
    April 7, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Mike, have you seen yesterday’s Arctic Sea Ice Extant graph, at the IJIS website? For the date of April 6th, the amount of Arctic Sea Ice is at at 7 YEAR HIGH!

    Oh I know, this is ALSO caused by global warming, right?

  45. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1John Reading
    April 7, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Let’s see, a huge consensus of government-funded scientists has declared that government control of everyone and everything will save the planet and anyone who disgrees should be punished for “misinformation”. Makes perfect sense to me.

    • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Jackie Bell
      April 7, 2010 at 9:33 pm

      Uh, yes. The Artic is not part of the globe, so when we say “global warming” we are being very specific that it is only those areas that are part of our globe that are having “global warming”. Duh.

  46. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1descarte
    April 7, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    uh, no, we’re yelling

    “NO FIRE”

    in a building that IS NOT “burning”

  47. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Tom Rowan
    April 8, 2010 at 8:09 am

    I have been studying the issue of “global warming” for nearly two decades now. I did speeches for college courses, wrote papers, and gave presentations.

    The author of this clap trap article propounds that he knows “for a fact” that skeptical views are false.

    Sue me then you coward.

    I know for a fact “global warming” is a hoax.

    Here are a few unchanging facts that put the lie to you, your phony science, and your completely cooked up globalony.

    Atmospheric CO2 has never been shown to cause warming either in the lab or in field observations. To say it has is a scientifically proven lie.

    The false analogies of tobacco, haulocast deniers, and Venus CO2 atmostphere levels are textbook examples and dictionary definitions of a dishonest smokescreen. Global Warming hoaxters must change the subject because they cannot argue the facts without lying.

    Mar’s atmosphere is 95% CO2 and is colder than earth, for example.
    Venus’s atmosphere is much more dense than earth’s and the high pressure of Venus’s atmosphere accounts for 99.99997 % of its heating.

    The idea of a warming planet causing massive death of human populations is laughably false and is a historic lie. The Roman Warm period, the Medieval Warm period, and almost other historical warming periods have been shown to be benificial to both plant and animal life.
    These warm periods were much warmer than the slight warming we have recorded since the last “little ice age.”

    Projections of widespread death caused by a warming climate are hallucinary and without any scientific foundations at all. Populations of plant & animal life grow exponentianally during warm periods. To say otherwise is a provable scientific lie.

    But we do know when the climate kills off plant and animal life. This is during cold periods like the Dark Ages and anytime the planet experiences natural and cyclical cooling.

    Lastly, the planet has not warmed for the last 15 years even according to “global warming” guru Phil Jones of East Anglia.

    In fact the planet has cooled for over a decade now.

    That is an incontovertable scientific fact. It is a scientifically measured and historical fact. If the planet is in fact cooling, then it is a provable scientific lie to say that it is warming.

    And if the planet is in fact cooling, then it is a provable scientific lie to claim that mankind is responsible for warming that is not occuring.

    I find it offensive that Mike Kaulbars thinks that he can go about lying and tries to justify his lying by name calling. His defense of lying is to smear folks who point out that he is a liar!

    Brilliant Saul Alynski technique but it does not hold water, merit any serious consideration in science or in fact, and should be rejected by thinking people everywhere.

    “Global warming” is a ponzi scheme built on a hoax supported by lies and liars like Mike Kaulbars. More and more people are realizing that they connot deny the facts.

  48. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1CarlPE
    April 8, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Well put.
    I was a global warming agnostic until all the hype started. To me, it’s simple. If they need to lie so much about things we know to be false, then likely everything else they proclaim is also false. A corollary to that would be, if they need to lie to make their case, they don’t have a case. In desperation, the warmists have advocated that the “deniers” be prosecuted, denied jobs, or fined. Next, they will want to put us on the rack.
    The truth, however, will not stop the EPA from enacting CO2 regulations. To the warmists, it isn’t the science that matters, it’s the tax revenue and control of the populace. It is as much a political issue as a scientific one.

  49. -3 Vote -1 Vote +1Martha
    April 10, 2010 at 6:48 am

    It is hard to believe that these comments are by real people.

    The science and basic concepts to understand the science are freely available. The concept of climate trends, the evidence that the current warming trend is a human-caused crisis, and the impacts on biological systems, are not being debated: at this point in the evolution of climate science, including and especially from a critical approach to the science, it is like debating that the earth is flat.

    A discussion of the interests at play, illuminated by the history of the tobacco industry, is highly relevant.

    I agree with you, Mike. At this point, a combination of foreknowledge and the intentional violation of the security of the planet’s natural resilience and the lack of accountability for the resulting effects makes it reasonable to argue that the issues lend themselves to involvement in the criminal justice system.

    Apparently liability may be the only way to get accountability from them.

    Martha

  50. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1steve
    April 12, 2010 at 1:05 am

    I would very much like to know what, exactly, I am denying? You throw that word around quite cavalierly but never seem to actual define what it means.

    I’m not funded by big oil, never received a cent from the tobacco industry and for all but 2 years of my cognisant life I considered myself an environmentalist. I was a fully paid up member of Greenpeace and I was angry that no one was doing anything about global warming. I thought the world didn’t care.

    After to looking at some of the science and listening to reasoned arguments from both sides I’m pretty much convinced this is a storm in a teacup and humanity has other much more pressing issues we need to deal with.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login