I mean radio, television, newspapers, magazines, internet and so on. Don't understand your question.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
I mean radio, television, newspapers, magazines, internet and so on. Don't understand your question.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I read the blog post FlasherZ. It's interesting indeed and while the whole thing could be, as Robert is suggesting above, a sound scepticism, I'm afraid it probably isn't. OK so follow the comments from that blog post by the author Dave Burton to this thread and Burton's comments scepticalscience.com and read the back-and-forth and rebuttals from very knowledagble people that after a while, as they have debunked his methodology and questioned his insinuations to the data being intentionally falsified to an extent, call him out. One says: "oh I didn't know we were playing by troll rules". Then the moderator says: "To better understand what David Burton is attemtping to accomplish on this comment thread, go to: http://www.sealevel.info/Cowtan_unintentionally_vindicates_Booker.html". That's an article on the same thing he's debating. Then I go to sealevel.info and see the startpage below, which most certainly is made do look that innocent yet with a direct link to "data" and is obviously made to get people browsing the subject online on the "sceptic-->denier slippery slope". Also note the .info site which looks very harmless, right?:
Then I read about about this "self-made" climate change debator, mr. Dave Burton, really is. Turns out he is an employee of the Heartland Institue, but denies it. Heartland is as crooked as it gets when it comes to spreading systematic disinformation on climate change. He is claimed to be sponsored/employed by Heartland in several spots online. In this article from 2012 it was claimed he was part of Heartland and this was repeated other places. From the comments section, very enlightening:
"
- MikeB
February 17, 2012
Dean – Dave seems to be multitasking, since he’s made exactly the same post at Stoat, as well as the Guardian, the BBC, Deep Climate, et al.
Someone commenting at the Guardian pointed out – ‘You seem remarkably familiar with the language, location and inner workings of all Heartland employees, office work and communications and to some degree this extends to all other skeptical outfits too. How would that be? Sounds like you may even work for them yourself.’
I think we are going to have to get used to this, because, as Ryan puts it, they really are squirming.
- #13dean
February 17, 2012
I noticed the same pattern MikeB. It’s almost as though a
type of bat-loon signal went out, and folks like Burton hauled
out a pre-written script.
- #14MikeB
February 17, 2012
Dean – what kind of signal would it have been? Low dog whistle (although thats more a Gringrich special) or like the bat signal, but with a ‘W’ instead. It could stand for ‘Watts’, or could be cockney slang for a banker…
I notice that Watts Up currently has a headline article quoting Andrew Bolt, who has apparently decided to call the whole thing ‘Fakegate’ (originality not being his strong point).
They are also into full spin mode – Watts writes about the Guardian story, and says ‘The most incriminating document was a fake.’ Not only is it unclear that the document in question is a fake, but of course it confirms that the rest of the documents are real. They are trying their best, bless them.€
OK so in 2012 Dave Burton held the title of "NC-20 Science Advisor". NC-20 is, according to their own homepage: "NC-20 is a partnership of the people, local governments, and businesses of the 20 coastal (CAMA) counties in North Carolina dedicated to economic development of the member counties." On the other hand, according to Earth Magazine this is a group funded and paid for by the Climate Denier Mafia (well maybe the didn't say it in that many word but "The basic motivation of the NC-20 is financial; the group is withholding information about coastal hazards from the public in order to keep area real estate and tourist markets up and running. None of the NC-20 leadership is qualified in any aspect of climate change science, but they certainly are savvy in the ways of public relations and information spinning. They are quite capable of reading the literature and exaggerating the uncertainties inherent to good science.").
So, pretty much, FlasherZ I'm sure you are a smart guy but don't get tricked in to this. (The commentary from above is from 2012 so he was made more than 2 years ago!
But what happens when those recording the "science" have their own agenda?
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
deonb
Active Member
However, you were saying earlier:
"You can express your opinion wherever you want but if you report on the media on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue that have not a scientific validation you are punished".
But now you're saying if you express that opinion on the internet you have to be punished for it. So basically if someone goes onto a forum like TMC, and question a scientists, they should be punished.
So where exactly are you supposed to express your opinion? Meet up in some dark ally and hope nobody takes a video and post it on YouTube?
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
Reasonably accurate information about climate change is readily available from innumerable sources. As with many other questions of widespread interest, Wikipedia is a good starting point.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming for accessible summaries with citations to hundreds of reference sources.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change for a list of national science academies and other scientific bodies which unanimously support the scientific consensus.
Other sites include: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/warmingfacts.pdf, http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/, http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_basics.php, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/, and http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/globalwarming.htm
After reviewing these materials, if you disagree, please provide an alternative scientific theory with supporting evidence (preferably in the form of peer reviewed scientific papers).
The paper you have cited addresses a line of questioning which has been exhaustively investigated and pursued by a number of scientists, including Richard Muller, previously cited.
In my view there is nothing in that paper that could give rise to liability. The criteria which I have outlined above (with reference to Canadian law) are clearly not met. To recap the three requirements are, that the representation:
- be false or misleading in a material respect;
- be made knowingly or recklessly; and
- be made for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest.
Of course also people reporting false data in favour of the Climate Change/Global Warming issue should be punished. But I would like to say that I gave a look to the article that you linked and I didn't like it very much. Don't believe that false sets of anomaly temperatures have been produced.
deonb
Active Member
So in that case you obviously wouldn't mind if Huffington Post makes anti-climate change claims, but you will mind it if CNN makes the same claim.
Ok, let's roll with that...
Huffington Post has between 110 million and 207 million unique monthly visitors - depending on whose figures you look at. Buzzfeed has at least as many.
Combined, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC has 2.85 million viewers. Add Wall Street Journal and Washington Post in there, and that figure goes up to around 6 million.
So what exactly are you accomplishing by going after traditional media? That's not where most people are getting their news from anymore.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
It's of course hard to tell on a message board, but I assume it's way more likely you are a person who has been misled than an actual paid denier, but it does seem that the deniers are struggeling now if they are down to the "what if the underlying data is false?" argument. Basically they have lost on every level so this is the last one you can resort to: claim that the data supporting the obvious conclusion are false. Also, if you read the longer post I made above about Dave Burton's activity you will see he's doing the same with sea temperatures and others are doing in to too about other variables right now in the last few weeks/months! It's a coordinated effort obviously. Please open your mind to the possibility that you are being misled by some very clever people.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
He is saying there is no way to control how someone spreads an opinion or an idea, except in a completly totalitarian society, which is not one we want.
(Sta dicendo che non c'è modo di controllare come qualcuno diffonde un parere o un'idea , se non in una società totalitaria, che non è quello che vogliamo.)
deonb
Active Member
You were saying that it should be illegal on the media to say something bad about climate change. But it's ok to say that on the internet.
However, most people don't get their news from traditional media anymore. People get their news from the internet now.
All of "Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post" COMBINED have 6 million viewers. Huffington Post ALONE has 110 million.
So what usefulness is it to go after Fox News, when that's not what people are looking at anymore?
Now we are going in the vane details. Fox News, CNN and so on are first of all newspapers and televisions.
RichardC
Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter
Please, for the sake of your own credibility and the quality of the discourse on this thread, don't ever cite Christopher Booker as an authority for anything.
For reasons see: http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-booker, https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/christopher-booker/, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10, and http://www.theguardian.com/environm...eb/04/christopher-booker-george-monbiot-prize
Applying the criteria which I have outlined above to this article, we need to ask are the representations:
- be false or misleading in a material respect; - Yes, very clearly
- be made knowingly or recklessly; and - Yes, in all likelihood
- be made for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest. - Open question?
deonb
Active Member
I agree they're newspapers & television. So I think you are saying that they should NOT be allowed to spread misinformation about climate change, right? Because they are media, right?
But Huffington Post is just a blog on the internet. So they ARE allowed to spread information about climate change?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
It's important not to conflate the 'grey' area of climate science;
- How fast will sea levels rise
- How much more severe will weather get
- How fast will the earth warm
With the Black and White areas of climate science;
- CO2 has risen ~40% in the last 100 years. No doubt.
- Humanity has emitted ~2x as much CO2 via fossil fuels as would be needed for that rise. No doubt.
- Doubling CO2 will cause average global temps to equalize >3C higher than than at 280ppm. No doubt.
That Facts are clear; the jury is in; We MUST break our fossil fuel addiction.
Agree with 1&2... but the motive is irrelevant. If I attempt to influence public policy with lies or misinformation for ANY reason I should be prosecuted.
Last edited:
Raffy,
I have a hard time of knowing where you are coming from. Most major media touts the idea of catastrophic climate change. I think there is global warming and that man may be responsible for some of it. However, I do not believe it is going to be catastrophic. Just think of what life would be like without the cheap energy that fossil fuels provide. There is no alternate at this time that can economically supplant fossil fuels. So how do you propose getting off our addiction to fossil fuels? I believe by having cheap plentiful energy and new technology we have actually improved our environment.
I have a hard time of knowing where you are coming from. Most major media touts the idea of catastrophic climate change. I think there is global warming and that man may be responsible for some of it. However, I do not believe it is going to be catastrophic. Just think of what life would be like without the cheap energy that fossil fuels provide. There is no alternate at this time that can economically supplant fossil fuels. So how do you propose getting off our addiction to fossil fuels? I believe by having cheap plentiful energy and new technology we have actually improved our environment.
deonb
Active Member
Why?
What makes the difference between Huffington Post, and Gizmodo? Or Perez Hilton? Or Wikinews?
Where do you draw the line?
If you're going to start shutting down the parts of the Internet that doesn't agree with you, you will end up having to police ALL of the internet. Good luck with that.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Seriously?..... Really?.... Where has ANYONE said we should take action because someone disagrees with us?
We take action...
WHEN THEY ARE WRONG
WHEN WHAT THEY SAY IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
Do you understand the concept of a scientific fact?
This is complete BS; Solar is now cheaper than coal in most of the country; Yes, we would need batteries to displace >20% of it but we're not even 1%. We've go a long way to go. We'll have the batteries when we need them. The cost of continued dependence on fossil fuels FAR, FAR outweighs the cost of advancing alternatives. The cost of energy I get from solar is <$0.04/kWh... go check your electric bill.
Last edited by a moderator:
