Skip to comments.90% of Enviro Skeptic Books Have Think Tank Roots
Posted on 06/06/2008 10:26:16 AM PDT by cogitator
First paragraph (links omitted):
A new study by a team of political scientists and sociologists at the journal Environmental Politics concludes that 9 out of 10 books published since 1972 that have disputed the seriousness of environmental problems and mainstream science can be linked to a conservative think tank (CTT). Following on earlier work by co-author Riley Dunlap and colleagues, the study examines the ability of conservative think tanks to use the media and other communication strategies to successfully challenge mainstream expert agreement on environmental problems.
Smite the eco-blasphemers!
Yep - the message can’t be right if it comes from conservatives, dontcha know.
And 9 out of 10 pro-global warming books can be traced to think tanks sponsored by carbon traders, first by Enron in days of yore, now with the likes of Goldman Sachs.
Yup, I'm sure going to be swayed by a study from a 'team' made up of that group.
I'll run to the "Political scientists" (there's an oxymoron for you), and sociologists every time... Published in the esteemed "Journal of Environmental Politics" no less...
And the ones in the 1970s already have proven to be correct. Any bets on whether those numbers will change? Already we're seeing the Gorebots change their mantra of "Gore-bal Warming!" to one of "Climate Change!"
I say 9 out of 10 “environmental” groups today have communist roots or backing.
No, wait, 99 out of 100...
nah, all of ‘em do.
This is set out well in Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear.”
The mainstream experts agree on warming and that CO2 has a mild warming effect. The mainstream experts do not agree on catastrophic warming (with any scientific probability)
I see you are a man causing global warming believer from that socialist state of Maryland. Explain how the world has gone through numerous ice ages and warmings when there were no SUV’s or factories to blame on the warming and cooling. Also explain why this year was one of the coldest in 100 years for China if CO2 is the culprit. Given the increase in CO2 emmissions in China should it not have gotten warmer?
Don't forget Generational Investment Management, the company founded by Algore, and who he gets his carbon credits from.
AGW ... even merely Catastrophic Climate Change (hot OR cold), if you wish ...
is a main socio-political battlefront, and must not be trivialized.
This “study” finds that Sceptics are birds of a feather. Whoop-de-doo!
As if Alarmists are not.
The point is NOT, who published your book ... the point must be,
Is Your Book True?
Explain why the hockey-stick chart is not a fraud !
Explain how the surface of the earth today measures cooler than it was 10 years ago !
Explain why anyone should believe a set of computer models
... whose projections are clearly out of line with observations ...
rather than act on the observations !
One of these was The Disaster Lobby: Prophets of Ecological Doom and Other Absurdities by Melvin J. Grayson and Thomas R. Shepard (Follett, 1973). Declaring that America was entering an "age of unreason" in its approach to environmental issues, the authors noted, among other things, that the number of malaria cases worldwide had been rising since the pesticide DDT was banned, and they dubbed Rachel Carson's bestseller Silent Spring (Fawcett, 1962), which inspired the movement to ban DDT, "the book that killed."
Weather and interannual climate variability.
interannual: "between years"
variability: "able or apt to vary : subject to variation or changes"
Cogitator will disagree with 1 and 3 and agree with me on #2. For number 1, the hockey stick is a fraud, see my web page.
For number 2, the El Nino 10 years ago caused a lot of global warming and the La Nina is causing a fair amount of global cooling.
For number 3, again my web page explains why models are oversimplified, but even if they weren't, they can't predict El Nino and the current La Nina.
The reason I respond with a disagreement with you on #2 is that hanging your hat on solar cooling or La Nina is a bad argument because, sure as the sun rises, there will be more El Ninos and warmth and solar variations will go the other way as well. The main reason to argue against cog's alarmism is that the catastrophic warming he warns about is a low probability event. We disagree on how low, he might say a few percent, I say zero for many reasons such as inertia of the ice on Greenland, lack of demonstrable positive feedbacks sufficient to "tip" the climate, etc
The antidote to bad science by the AGWers is not waste, it’s good science. Maybe put up some sort of ad to spend that day teaching kids that science has been politicized, that waste is bad but government is always worse, etc.