Who Are These People and Why Are They Lying to Me?

Written By: Reverend Blair
Date: 2005-04-08 10:46:00
<a href="/article/104635503-who-are-these-people-and-why-are-they-lying-to-me">Article Link</a>

Much has been said about the dumbing down of our society. It is now cool to be uninformed. Political debate is based on catch-phrases, not policy. Educated people in universities and scientists are, we are told, pointy-headed fools in ivory towers who are incapable of existing in the real world. Opinions are all equal. An opinion informed by experience, education, and research no more valid than the knee-jerk response informed by personal greed and the freakish screaming matches on neo-conservative American talk shows. That we are so easily fooled by this is the result of our cultural beliefs. The media has been indoctrinating us all to be good consumers for a very long time. We are told that greed is good, that conspicuous consumption is a sign of success. Six cylinders are better than four and eight better than six. If you can afford something with 10 cylinders you are on your way, 12 and you’ve hit the big time. Huge SUVs are safer, we are told. That the evidence does not bear that out is immaterial. We are bombarded with the false images, not the facts. The misinformation continues. We are told that our economy must always expand, that our populations must always increase. When somebody steps forward and points out that our resources are finite and our present way of doing things unsustainable, they are written off as tree-huggers who are trying to destroy society and force us all to live in caves. That argument makes no sense at its very core. Environmentally responsible policies, whether we are talking about meeting Kyoto targets or reducing overall consumption to sustainable levels, require technological advances. That is the opposite of the charge made by the anti-environmentalists. They also lie to promote the idea that implementing Kyoto will bring us to economic ruin. This also makes no sense. Meeting our Kyoto targets will require the implementation of new technology. Throughout the history of our species, technological advances have created wealth and bettered the lot of regular people. This has been true since the first homo habilis sharpened a stick to use as a spear. It has held true for technological advances right into the computer age. The supposition that it will not hold true for alternative forms of energy is ridiculous. Most disturbing are the constant attacks on the science behind global warming theory. The people who seek to discredit the science that confirms anthropogenic-caused global warming are an interesting bunch. Most have ties to the oil industry, many are indirectly funded by <a href="http://exxonsecrets.org/">Exxon.</a> Names like <a href="http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html"> Baliunas, Seitz, Singer, and Soon</a> pop up regularly, their theories given credence without question. Attacks on scientific theory by people like Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are constant and the way they are presented misleading. Their peer reviewed paper, which attacks the so-called “hockey stick” graph. The hockey stick is a single piece of work. It is a statistical analysis of temperature data that closely matches corroborating data from several other studies. McIntyre and McItrick published their paper in the November 2003 edition of Energy and Environment, hardly a magazine of repute in the climatology community. It was peer reviewed by people who did not have the backgrounds to properly judge it. If you speak to a global warming denier you will hear much talk about the hockey stick. It is a major part of their vocabulary. McIntyre and McKitrick are generally presented as Canadian scientists by their supporters. The Exxon Secrets website says of McIntyre, "Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada." Under McKitrick, the same site says, "specializes in the application of economic analysis to environmental policy design and climate change." Both have worked for the George Marshall Institute, a think tank that does no original research and receives funding from Exxon. The claim is often made that all of global warming theory and the Kyoto Accord hinge on the hockey stick graph. This is not accurate. The graph came into being after the Kyoto agreement and well after global warming theory had developed. It is one piece of data in a vast library of scientific knowledge about global warming. The most salient point about their “debunking” of the hockey stick graph is that their results have been brought into question by serious scientists from many disciplines. Their work is riddled with mistakes, questionable omissions of data, and claims not substantiated by their new data. McIntyre and McKitrick have no more debunked the hockey stick than the hockey stick represented all of global warming theory. Another piece of the anti-environmentalists dictionary is The Oregon Petition. This is the petition signed by 17,000 scientists that is so often thrown up as proof that the scientific community does not support global warming science. The petition does indeed exist. The problem is that it was sent out under what are best-described as fraudulent conditions. Attached to the petition was a paper that appeared to be a peer reviewed and previously published research review. It was neither and the data in it was not accurate. The petition’s cover letter, Frederick Seitz not only mentions that he is a past president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and formatted the report to look like one from their publication, prompting the NAS to issue a news saying, “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.” In his <a href="http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/05#oregonpetition"> Deltoid blog</a>, researcher Tim Lambert explains it this way, “As a researcher, when I see a “research review” I expect that it will cover all the relevant research. I can certainly understand how a scientist who was under the impression that it was a genuine review might be persuaded that there was no good evidence for global warming, especially because the vast majority of scientists who signed were not climate scientists.” As Paul Martin and his Liberals try to convince Canadians that we can meet Kyoto targets without a solid plan and Stephen Harper and the Conservatives openly parrot the anti-environmental stance of the Bush Republicans, an opportunity is slipping away from us. To not meet our Kyoto goals will be costly, while meeting them offers Canada the chance to become a leader in the technologies of alternative energy and energy conservation. Those who would see Kyoto scuttled are spreading confusion, misperceptions, half-truths and outright lies. They see the lack of political leadership and are all too aware that through yet another assault on the science that supports global warming theory they may be able to influence public opinion. To not meet our Kyoto commitments would be bad enough, but to actually withdraw from the accord would be disastrous. It is time Canadians demanded political leadership on environmental issues like Kyoto. The science is solid and there is a rare amount of consensus within the scientific community. Our political leaders should be promoting that. Instead we have an official opposition that seems to be taking orders from Exxon and a minority government that lacks the spine to even use the word Kyoto in their budget speech. Our leaders won’t do it though. They lack the courage to face the truth. As a result every time the environment and the Kyoto Accord comes up in conversation I am left wondering, “Who are these people and why are they lying to us?” A few links to the real science: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/">Real Climate</a> <a href="http://www.whrc.org/">Woods Hole Centre</a> <a href="http://info-pollution.com/myths.htm">Info-Pollution</a>

Good stuff Rev!
Damn this site just keeps getting better.
Learn more every day.

You should venture south of the border, where you won't run into the diatribing neocons that populate Canada. We take this issue very seriously in the states.

It was the Rev himself that said he runs into dim-bulb Canadians and backs up his science by giving us the link to Woods Hole -- an esteemed US oceanographic institution. Was the Rev lying about the people he runs into?

Typical Canadian approach to environmental protection -- smug talk, no action.

Uncivilised and uncalled-for outburst.

I am becoming uncivilized for the coming war.Hell maybe I should go to Iraq and see if I can help out.That would give me even more training.Just think,Iraq needs our help,they need the worlds help,and nobody does anything.Shit I am off topic.

Topics are like that, Spud.

I quote a lot of US sources, anonymice. That's because, much to your chagrin, I'm not anti-American. Woods Hole does a lot of good work. So does Tim Lambert at Deltoid. I don't give a rat's ass what their passports say.

Since the lies are being funded by a US corporation (Exxon), shouldn't we be paying attention to the American naysayers and the people that debunk them?

So why did you make 3 of them then?

---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

Good article Reverend, good links too. Now that the media is focusing on adscam we will have even less, (if that's possible), media attention being paid to the real life and death issues.

I agree it is not so much american people as corporations.I could care less what anybodie passport says too,so long as they want freedom.On the other,I don`t want any Nazi`s next door,unless I get them for target practice.

What ever gave you the idea I was antiamerican?

I am someone who had two pepole in my family die of cancers caused by their enviroment, that's who I am. You global warming advocates attack everyone else but you can't get your own facts to agree between any two of you. I have never used a source that I didn't think credible which is much unlike your arguments which depend on movie stars and rock musicians and baby polar bears to sell.
I believe that our pursuit for this at such a high price where we neglect cancers and things that cause them verges on criminal responsibilty. That's who I am. Why haven't you listened to anybody on the other side before?

I'm not sure which rock stars you are referring to, John. I've linked only to sources that supply more information or explain terms I have used, like "Astroturf".

If you have people in your family who have suffered cancer from environmental causes, I'd suggest that you get in touch with the appropriate groups in your area. If you think I can help with that, let me know.

John,

I can see that you have a passionate concern for the state of the planet and that you disagree with the way that it is being handled by environmentalists so what I would truly be interested in knowing is what are you suggesting we do differently? You've posted articles that appear to pooh pooh Kyoto and maybe even pooh pooh industry being responsible for pollution and the dying ecosystems on the planet so what would you see as a better way of spending our energy and dollars on that would bring about the same end results that you and I both want? Seriously.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

Whether we die of cancer caused by environmental contamination, or of starvation as a direct result of climate change, we will be no less dead. If you are big enough, and strong enough, climate change is the better option, at least one can beat off those weaker in quest of the dwindling foodstuffs. After all, we know the rules in this “dog-eat-dog” neo-con capitalist enlightened world.

Even in the unlikely event that climate change does not occur, or is not harmful, it would be nice to leave some of the oil and gas for our descendants, a barrel or two at least in a museum some place, so they can marvel at us consuming all 2 trillion barrels in less than 200 years: except these two.

Their only recourse being to stand at our grave and piss on the headstone and mutter, “you bastards!”

djammer