Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

The REAL Climategate

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron, Matt8819, Ironclad

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#21  Postby Acetone » Feb 17, 2012 3:35 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Alan B wrote:That's understandable. The BBC, like any other member of the media circus, hasn't got the science trained staff to really appreciate what the scientists are talking about.
So, since they are in the business of selling news, they opt-out of having to think, and instead they pander to the more 'news-worthy' loud-mouthed illiterati - especially those with money behind them.

But I would like to think better of the BBC. :(

Sorry, I gave the wrong impression there. I don't mean that Richard Black (the environmental journalist) is to blame, but rather that all his articles are followed by numerous BBC members - membership allows you to comment on articles - who are the most ardent reality-deniers I've ever seen.

Look down to the comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

He has a serious following. It doesn't matter if he's writing about tuna stock depletion, these people will write dozens of comments on 'climate alarmism'.

I'd rather expect that many of them are paid to write comments in such venues, yunno, like a nickle a word or something. This is a well known fact of life on many US sites that run a positive line on climate change, they are sometimes overwhelmed with comment posts which are little more than Heartland Institute talking points, the same old blather.

The government's failure to step up to the plate on this and do something about emissions will in future be seen as having been a monstrous crime and a fundamental bit of utter irresponsibility, and the not too distant future, either.

I fully expect the question of GHG emissions to rise to the forefront and become a defining issue for America's future, probably the singlemost defining issue of our time. The pot is just beginning to bubble, in three or fours year it could become a seething cauldron.

Indeed, the question is by that time will any changes we make even matter?

By saying matter I mean to humans. This isn't about taking care of the planet or protecting the planet. The planet is fine and is going to be fine, it's us that are screwed. We've also been screwing up other species of animals on the planet but life on Earth isn't in danger because of us... WE'RE in danger because of us not the planet, not life, not water, not the resources of Earth just us.

So I guess my point is, everything is going to work out in the end, but is it going to work out with humans around or not? Will we face a significant drop in population? I think the only way we can gurantee our survival as a species is acting NOW. Unfortunately I think that we won't change a damn thing until it's too late. At that point any changes we make won't alter the course of humanity's extinction.

Which is normal (extinction events on Earth)... it's just that we've probably had the shortest amount of time as the dominant species on the planet before facing an extinction event which was entirely created by us. So much for intelligence.
Acetone
 
Posts: 3197
Age: 25
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#22  Postby mcgruff » Feb 17, 2012 4:52 pm

The species will certainly survive. The global economy and large-scale industrial societies probably won't. They could if we did the right things but it seems much more likely that we're going to smash the truck straight into the wall.
I'm not a c*nt!
mcgruff
 
Posts: 2186
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#23  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Feb 17, 2012 7:58 pm

Acetone wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Alan B wrote:That's understandable. The BBC, like any other member of the media circus, hasn't got the science trained staff to really appreciate what the scientists are talking about.
So, since they are in the business of selling news, they opt-out of having to think, and instead they pander to the more 'news-worthy' loud-mouthed illiterati - especially those with money behind them.

But I would like to think better of the BBC. :(

Sorry, I gave the wrong impression there. I don't mean that Richard Black (the environmental journalist) is to blame, but rather that all his articles are followed by numerous BBC members - membership allows you to comment on articles - who are the most ardent reality-deniers I've ever seen.

Look down to the comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

He has a serious following. It doesn't matter if he's writing about tuna stock depletion, these people will write dozens of comments on 'climate alarmism'.

I'd rather expect that many of them are paid to write comments in such venues, yunno, like a nickle a word or something. This is a well known fact of life on many US sites that run a positive line on climate change, they are sometimes overwhelmed with comment posts which are little more than Heartland Institute talking points, the same old blather.

The government's failure to step up to the plate on this and do something about emissions will in future be seen as having been a monstrous crime and a fundamental bit of utter irresponsibility, and the not too distant future, either.

I fully expect the question of GHG emissions to rise to the forefront and become a defining issue for America's future, probably the singlemost defining issue of our time. The pot is just beginning to bubble, in three or fours year it could become a seething cauldron.

Indeed, the question is by that time will any changes we make even matter?

By saying matter I mean to humans. This isn't about taking care of the planet or protecting the planet. The planet is fine and is going to be fine, it's us that are screwed. We've also been screwing up other species of animals on the planet but life on Earth isn't in danger because of us... WE'RE in danger because of us not the planet, not life, not water, not the resources of Earth just us.

So I guess my point is, everything is going to work out in the end, but is it going to work out with humans around or not? Will we face a significant drop in population? I think the only way we can gurantee our survival as a species is acting NOW. Unfortunately I think that we won't change a damn thing until it's too late. At that point any changes we make won't alter the course of humanity's extinction.

Which is normal (extinction events on Earth)... it's just that we've probably had the shortest amount of time as the dominant species on the planet before facing an extinction event which was entirely created by us. So much for intelligence.

As mcgruff notes, the species will survive, although that notion is beginning to look somewhat questionable given recent findings in the behavior of food crop plants in temperatures of 40C and up, wherein photosynthesis is slowed to a crawl or stops altogether and these plants start emitting C02 instead of oxygen, and when you look at a projection of how much of the world will be at 40C or above (on average) in the coming decades, you can't escape the conclusion that food supplies will dwindle and probably even plummet to such low levels that the species will indeed be threatened.

If we managed somehow to completely stop GHG emissions tomorrow, the planet would continue to warm for many decades, probably for a hundred years, before beginning a decline, which would be a slow decline. This of course owes to the tremendous load of GHGs we've already emitted into the atmosphere, which has pushed the concentration of C02 about 45 per cent above its preindustrial norm (270ppm versus 390ppm). This alone would push the global mean average temperature up by at least 2C over the preindustrial norm come the year 2100.

But of course we're not going to stop emitting GHGs any time soon and their concentration in the atmosphere will continue to increase as time passes and this will continue pushing global temps ever upward. The IPCC's worst case scenario shows a 6C increase over the preindustrial norm by the year 2100, and that's simply intolerable to most human life and certainly would bring an end to civilization as we know it. And whether any remnant human population could survive on a desiccated planet with most of its biodiversity gone is a remarkably open question.

And in this, it's unwise to think of humans in isolation from the biosphere. What we need is a Holocene climate with the kind and degree of biodiversity that has existed over the past many hundreds of millennia, the physical context which gave rise to our species in the first place. If the web of life becomes frayed and disheveled and fractured and reduced to any notable degree, our chances of survival are diminished, even greatly diminished. And so we have to pay attention to the entire skein of things and do whatever we can to sustain biodiversity at least at its present level and degree.

This is what we've been ignoring:


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The most significant recent climate change findings are:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2ºC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2ºC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19ºC per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas inccreases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying
warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: [Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2ºC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

This is from "The Copenhagan Diagnosis," published in 2010 by the Climate Center at the University of New South Wales in Australia as an update to the IPCC's AR4, published in 2007.

"The turning point must come soon" is the key line here obviously.

We'll never be able to say we weren't warned! :doh:
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#24  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Feb 18, 2012 5:32 am

A relative and interesting take:


Why Global Warming Still Considered Target Of Skepticism For Americans

By Lynn Peeples
First Posted: 02/17/2012 7:20 pm Updated: 02/17/2012 8:48 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/1 ... 85738.html

If you follow the popular polls, you might think that Americans are growing ever more skeptical about man-made climate change -- despite the consensus among published climate scientists.

That's simply not true, Jon Krosnick of Stanford University told an audience of social scientists and cognitive researchers Wednesday, in Garrison, N.Y. He maintained that most Americans do, in fact, believe.

The problem, Krosnick said during his talk at the Garrison Institute's annual Climate, Mind and Behavior symposium, is that we haven't been asking the public the right questions. The other problem: Legislators are reading their misleading answers and hearing from a vocal minority of constituents.

"Public opinion has the potential to move legislators," he said. "But methods that political scientists are using to document the public will are going at a snail's pace."

With funding from major news outlets such as Reuters and ABC News, Krosnick's team has been conducting its own national surveys over the last several years. Since 2009, their findings have diverged from those of other survey organizations.

Gallup and Pew polls show that the percentage of Americans that believe in climate change now hovers around 50 percent, but Krosnick's latest poll -- which asked the question in a more detailed way -- suggests the figure is 83 percent -- up from 79 percent in 1997. Of the global warming believers, the majority also reported thinking that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities play a role. The trend held after the researchers broke the data down by political party: 66 percent of Republicans said climate change is happening.

Further, not a single U.S. state had a majority opinion on the skeptical side, noted Krosnick. Even in Oklahoma, the home of one of the country's most outspoken skeptics, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a large majority of the people polled agreed with the scientific consensus.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, doesn't share the same optimism.

Combining various public opinion polls, including Krosnick's, he sees a downward trend in the percentage of Americans believing in global warming since 2007. Further, in a new open-ended poll, he's found that the first thing that came to the minds of 23 percent of people when they thought about climate change was a naysayer thought, such as a recent record snowstorm or a conspiracy theory. This is up from 7 percent in 2003, he told The Huffington Post.

Krosnick and his colleagues also looked at two ways of framing a question about the public's ranking of issues. In response to "What is the most important problem facing this country today?," the economy ranked at the top with global warming dead last. When this question was reworded to ask, "What will be the most important problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?," the results were reversed: Global warming ranked No. 1.

"This message is not getting across to Washington," said Krosnick.

Scott Brophy, a philosophy professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, agreed that politicians are "out of touch" with the thinking of their constituents. Yet the problem remains, he said, that "1 in every 3 or 4 Americans doesn't believe in a basic fact."

For democracy to work, according to Brophy, we need to understand how and why people don't trust the scientific facts.
Research has shown that people are motivated to find information that supports their beliefs. "Encountering counterarguments causes us to marshal forces like an army of white blood cells to defend against them," said Brophy.

He pointed to the influence of massive disinformation campaigns such as the recently outed Heartland Institute. "This is a real threat to democracy," he told HuffPost.

"Krosnick is not addressing the nature of our political decision-making process, which is not driven by majority rule," added Bob Doppelt, executive director of The Resource Innovation Group, a non-profit organization affiliated with Willamette University. "It's driven by elites that paid for, fund and have the most access and, therefore, the most influence over officials ..."

In a way, the whole discussion is beside the point, according to Brophy. The question we should be asking, he said: "What are the policies we should adopt?"

"There, reasonable people can disagree. Policy doesn't automatically follow from the facts," added Brophy. "Yet we continue arguing about whether the Earth is round. This is crazy."
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#25  Postby Larkus » Feb 21, 2012 10:03 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Alan B wrote:That's understandable. The BBC, like any other member of the media circus, hasn't got the science trained staff to really appreciate what the scientists are talking about.
So, since they are in the business of selling news, they opt-out of having to think, and instead they pander to the more 'news-worthy' loud-mouthed illiterati - especially those with money behind them.

But I would like to think better of the BBC. :(

Sorry, I gave the wrong impression there. I don't mean that Richard Black (the environmental journalist) is to blame, but rather that all his articles are followed by numerous BBC members - membership allows you to comment on articles - who are the most ardent reality-deniers I've ever seen.

Look down to the comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

He has a serious following. It doesn't matter if he's writing about tuna stock depletion, these people will write dozens of comments on 'climate alarmism'.

I'd rather expect that many of them are paid to write comments in such venues, yunno, like a nickle a word or something. This is a well known fact of life on many US sites that run a positive line on climate change, they are sometimes overwhelmed with comment posts which are little more than Heartland Institute talking points, the same old blather.


There don't even need to be many of them. With the right software a few can appear as a crowd.

I recommend reading this (somewhat scary) article on DailyKOS: UPDATED: The HB Gary Email That Should Concern Us All

Excerpt from the article:
According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.
Larkus
 
Posts: 264

Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#26  Postby Animavore » Feb 21, 2012 10:36 am

Not surprised. It's what we all knew. Where's Fox News now?
The thing about Irish people is they're always just sort of angry.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 28507
Age: 35
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#27  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Feb 21, 2012 4:26 pm

Larkus wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Alan B wrote:That's understandable. The BBC, like any other member of the media circus, hasn't got the science trained staff to really appreciate what the scientists are talking about.
So, since they are in the business of selling news, they opt-out of having to think, and instead they pander to the more 'news-worthy' loud-mouthed illiterati - especially those with money behind them.

But I would like to think better of the BBC. :(

Sorry, I gave the wrong impression there. I don't mean that Richard Black (the environmental journalist) is to blame, but rather that all his articles are followed by numerous BBC members - membership allows you to comment on articles - who are the most ardent reality-deniers I've ever seen.

Look down to the comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

He has a serious following. It doesn't matter if he's writing about tuna stock depletion, these people will write dozens of comments on 'climate alarmism'.

I'd rather expect that many of them are paid to write comments in such venues, yunno, like a nickle a word or something. This is a well known fact of life on many US sites that run a positive line on climate change, they are sometimes overwhelmed with comment posts which are little more than Heartland Institute talking points, the same old blather.

There don't even need to be many of them. With the right software a few can appear as a crowd.

I recommend reading this (somewhat scary) article on DailyKOS: UPDATED: The HB Gary Email That Should Concern Us All

Excerpt from the article:
According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

Well, there ya go, it's even worse than I thought. Liars and bullshitters and prevaricators everywhere in apparent multitudes that belie the facts of actual numbers.

I will say this, though, on liberal sites that cover climate change stories, we do often see quite good retorts by commoners (to these robotized denials) that show a good grasp of the science and the situation, so all is not lost.

Climate change needs a popular leader, or leaders, a role that Al Gore has played and Bill McKibbon has stepped up to on the XL pipeline issue, but we need a lot more of this. We need well known personalities to lead the charge. Gore has worn out his welcome and aside from McKibbon, I don't see many others accepting this challenge, and it is a huge challenge because the media is against you all the way. We do see the odd interview situation in which a climate scientist is pitted against some well known denier, but they are infrequent and are often made inconclusive by mealy mouthed interviewers.

I think the way Gore has been pilloried over the past decade scares off some of those who might otherwise rise to the occasion and prevents the pro-AGW movement from gaining the leadership it needs and needs badly. Perhaps we'll see some of this over the coming five years or so. I do expect the IPCC's AR5, slated for publication in early 2013, to be a bombshell, and it may well reignite the issue in a broader more meaningful way that might give rise to some new leaders.

We can hope.
Last edited by FACT-MAN-2 on Feb 22, 2012 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#28  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Feb 21, 2012 4:32 pm

The Heartland Institute say one of the documents is fake, but haven't said whether what is said on the document is true or not. They don't deny they are taking donations to promote science denial, they just seem proud of the fact they aren't accountable for 1 of the documents in question. Which lead to this clarification blog post by Peter Gleick.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-g ... 89669.html

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement:

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

cont...
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6665
Age: 21
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#29  Postby Animavore » Feb 22, 2012 11:40 am

The Heartland Institute are bemoaning the fact they were duped into handing over documents http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ate-attack

:cry:
The thing about Irish people is they're always just sort of angry.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 28507
Age: 35
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#30  Postby ginckgo » Feb 22, 2012 11:48 am

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:The Heartland Institute say one of the documents is fake, ....


And by implication they're saying the others are all authentic :grin:
Cape illud, fracturor

Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they are not even shallow. Nietzsche
User avatar
ginckgo
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 944
Age: 42
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#31  Postby Garm » Feb 22, 2012 11:59 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Climate change needs a popular leader, or leaders, a role that Al Gore has played and Bill McKibbon has stepped up to on the XL pipeline issue, but we need a lot more of this. We need well known personalities to lead the charge. Gore has worn out his welcome and aside from McKibbon, I don't see many others accepting this challenge, and it is a huge challenge because the media is against you all the way. We do see the odd interview situation in which a climate scientist is pitted against some well known denier, but they are infrequent and are often made inconclusive by mealy mouthed interviewers.

One of the problems of media coverage of climate change is the tendency to present a 'balanced view' of the issue by giving denialists equal opportunity to express their opinions. This leads to people thinking there is a controversy where there actually is none. Media should stick to the facts more instead of providing a platform for idiots and corporate sockpuppets.
~ Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance. - Will Durant ~
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 849
Age: 36
Male

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#32  Postby ginckgo » Feb 23, 2012 1:50 am

Garm wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Climate change needs a popular leader, or leaders, a role that Al Gore has played and Bill McKibbon has stepped up to on the XL pipeline issue, but we need a lot more of this. We need well known personalities to lead the charge. Gore has worn out his welcome and aside from McKibbon, I don't see many others accepting this challenge, and it is a huge challenge because the media is against you all the way. We do see the odd interview situation in which a climate scientist is pitted against some well known denier, but they are infrequent and are often made inconclusive by mealy mouthed interviewers.

One of the problems of media coverage of climate change is the tendency to present a 'balanced view' of the issue by giving denialists equal opportunity to express their opinions. This leads to people thinking there is a controversy where there actually is none. Media should stick to the facts more instead of providing a platform for idiots and corporate sockpuppets.

The media's obsession with the "View From Nowhere" is partly to blame.
Cape illud, fracturor

Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they are not even shallow. Nietzsche
User avatar
ginckgo
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 944
Age: 42
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#33  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Feb 23, 2012 2:50 am

ginckgo wrote:
Garm wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Climate change needs a popular leader, or leaders, a role that Al Gore has played and Bill McKibbon has stepped up to on the XL pipeline issue, but we need a lot more of this. We need well known personalities to lead the charge. Gore has worn out his welcome and aside from McKibbon, I don't see many others accepting this challenge, and it is a huge challenge because the media is against you all the way. We do see the odd interview situation in which a climate scientist is pitted against some well known denier, but they are infrequent and are often made inconclusive by mealy mouthed interviewers.

One of the problems of media coverage of climate change is the tendency to present a 'balanced view' of the issue by giving denialists equal opportunity to express their opinions. This leads to people thinking there is a controversy where there actually is none. Media should stick to the facts more instead of providing a platform for idiots and corporate sockpuppets.

The media's obsession with the "View From Nowhere" is partly to blame.

Garm's point is well taken, it's a notion that's been common around the movement for some time now and it has been written about. And it's at least generally true. It happens mainly because media thrives on conflict, it's the only way they know how to frame an issue, so they end up wth a denier facing off with a climate scientist or a science reporter and the impression is left that there is a real live actual debate going on ... when in fact there isn't. The decline in science reporters in recent years also contributes to this.

The climate science community has to devise a better framework for discussing the issue and push that on the media, and push it hard. The topic should be framed around the threat and the veracity of the science that warns us of it, and the many ways we can act to curb rising planetary temperatures, all without having to "go back and live in caves." And the fact that we're out of time.

It should not be framed around the idea of "we have a problem/no, we don't" because everyone who counts in this already knows we do have a problem, a very big problem as a matter of fact.

I expect the climate science community will have to do something to prepare the public for the BOMBSHELL that IPCC's upcoming publication of AR5, its 5th Assessment Report, due in early 2013. Because I'm thinking that report is indeed going to contain some shockingly bad news that will blow the debate to smithereens and cause lots of knee jerk reactions that won't do anyone any good nor help clarify the nature of the problem.

This is where leaders and spokespersons and writers come in, they can convey the "bad news" in more reasonable and easier to understand terms, in effect, they can humanize it, which is what leaders and spokespersons do with an issue. Not make it palatable but more clearly understood.

What I've called the "BOMBSHELL" news has to come sooner or later in any case, and whether it's AR5 or AR6 five years later, we know damned well it's coming.

I've not heard the term "View from Nowhere" that you mention, and although I could probably make some guesses about what it involves, could you elaborate?
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#34  Postby Garm » Feb 23, 2012 9:15 am

I'd never heard the term before, but according to Wikipedia:
The View from Nowhere is a phrase used to describe a complex, widespread, particular kind of conflict of interest in media ethics, specifically between being objective and informative.

It refers to journalism and analysis that disinform the audience by creating the impression that opposing parties to an issue have equal correctness and validity, even when the truth of their claims are mutually exclusive.

The noble goal of objective and unbiased reporting ("just the facts"), leaves decisions about the meaning and value of a news report up to the audience. But sometimes the facts of a particular story can have only one particular set of meanings. In such a case, a journalist must clearly define what facts are members of this set, and what beliefs are not a member of this set.
~ Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance. - Will Durant ~
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 849
Age: 36
Male

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#35  Postby ginckgo » Feb 23, 2012 9:26 am

Garm wrote:I'd never heard the term before, but according to Wikipedia:
The View from Nowhere is a phrase used to describe a complex, widespread, particular kind of conflict of interest in media ethics, specifically between being objective and informative.

It refers to journalism and analysis that disinform the audience by creating the impression that opposing parties to an issue have equal correctness and validity, even when the truth of their claims are mutually exclusive.

The noble goal of objective and unbiased reporting ("just the facts"), leaves decisions about the meaning and value of a news report up to the audience. But sometimes the facts of a particular story can have only one particular set of meanings. In such a case, a journalist must clearly define what facts are members of this set, and what beliefs are not a member of this set.

The fucked up state of our news reporting in a nutshell.
Cape illud, fracturor

Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they are not even shallow. Nietzsche
User avatar
ginckgo
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 944
Age: 42
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#36  Postby Alan B » Feb 23, 2012 9:42 am

'View from nowhere'. Useful term. Must remember that.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 4754
Age: 78
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#37  Postby Garm » Feb 23, 2012 9:47 am

Isn't Fox News' tagline 'We report, you decide'?

They present themselves as employing the View from Nowhere, whilst probably being one of the most biased news programs in existence. :crazy:
~ Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance. - Will Durant ~
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 849
Age: 36
Male

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#38  Postby WayOfTheDodo » Feb 25, 2012 2:40 pm

The Heartland Institute has a good reason to claim that the memo is fake: If it is real, the organization is guilty of withholding information from parts of the board. This is a serious violation!

And now that several analyses of the actual text in the memo show that Gleick is one of the least like authors and that Heartland Institute insiders like Bast are the most likely, the denialosphere is spinning with confusion. Most of them are still in denial.

Others have come up with the excuse that the text analyses obviously show Heartland insiders as the most likely authors, since large parts of the memo was a cut&paste job from other Heartland Institute documents. That is supposed to explain why analyses show the HI's own as the likely authors, but it does not explain all the claims about how it must be Gleick because the memo was in his writing style. How can the writing style be Gleick's, but at the same time, the memo is most likely written by Heartland insiders?

Oh, the hilarity of the denialists and their denial.
User avatar
WayOfTheDodo
 
Name: Raphus Cucullatus
Posts: 810

Mauritius (mu)
Print view this post

Re: Heartland Institute Climate Denial Exposed

#39  Postby Horwood Beer-Master » Feb 27, 2012 12:15 am

Spearthrower wrote:As usual, the BBC is a hotbed for deniers: lots of threats being made in comments about the article, and how the BBC is defaming the Heartland institute. I've never seen a more condensed group of reality-deniers than in the comments section of any article written by Richard Black.

I wonder how many of them are the same person posting under several accounts?

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:...and these plants start emitting C02 instead of oxygen...

Plants are always emitting both C02 and oxygen, since they respire as well as photosynthesise. The point is that in a healthy plant under ideal conditions the rate at which carbon is captured in photosynthesis exceeds the rate at which previously stored carbon is released as C02 by respiration. However if a plant finds itself under stress (say by a change in climate), it may have to eat into it's carbohydrate store more-and-more just to survive, to the point where it goes from being a net emitter of oxygen to a net emitter of C02. Also if an entire habitat is stressed, not only will many individual stressed plants become net C02 emitters, but many others will simply die and rot, and their stored carbon will be released back into the atmosphere as C02 (and methane) released by the bacteria and fungi as they break down the plant's tissues.
Also available on Rationalia

Image
User avatar
Horwood Beer-Master
 
Name: Ian
Posts: 1939
Age: 33

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest