Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says Physicist

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,595
992
126
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/06/prweb11949905.htm

The climate change deniers of today are engaged in a campaign that is very similar to the one waged by tobacco advocates to deny a link between smoking and lung cancer in an attempt to deceive the public into thinking man made global warming isn’t real, according to a professor of physics. Dr. Christopher Keating, author of Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming, said, “Global warming deniers are using the same tactics as the tobacco advocates. In fact, some of the people involved today were involved in the tobacco campaign. They are very good at deceiving people and they learned from their mistakes. Of course, we know how the tobacco campaign turned out and they are working very hard to make sure this one doesn’t end the same way.”

Keating has been involved, at some level, with climate change for 30 years. He has been a professor of physics for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

Keating points to the claims of deniers as supporting evidence. “Compare the claims of deniers of today to the people that denied a link between tobacco and lung disease and see how similar they are. The tobacco people funded certain scientists to undermine valid research. At the same time, they called into question the ability of scientist receiving government funding to remain unbiased. They claimed lung disease was just a natural event. Climate change deniers today are making the same arguments about global warming.”

Keating also points to the funding source for much of the deniers. “A recent study done at Drexel University showed that denier organizations have received nearly $560 million over an eight-year period. They traced this money to about 140 different organizations, including many with ties to the fossil fuel industry. These are the people that stand to lose money if we do something about climate change. It simply shatters any credibility the deniers might have ever had.”

The ironic thing about people not believing in climate change is that they have to pay for it, says Keating. “It’s always the consumers that have to pay the costs and this is no exception. As the costs go up, those added expenses will be passed down as higher prices. We are already seeing increases in the cost of utilities, insurance, food and many more things due to climate change. The businesses don’t pay those expenses. We do. So, every time you say climate change isn’t real, you need to take your checkbook out and write a check to the people running the fossil fuel industry.”

Keating says the results of climate change science are so overwhelming that the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science. “Greenhouse gases are on the rise and the effects are evident: The earth is getting warmer, weather everywhere is changing, the oceans are warming at an alarming rate and ice caps are melting. Every where you look you see evidence of global warming. This isn’t something that is only going to occur in the future, it is happening right now.”

Keating demonstrated this point in his new book, Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming. Written in the style of Galileo’s Dialogues on Two New Sciences, Keating’s book consists of three friends debating the issues surrounding global warming. Just as in Galileo’s works, one friend acts as an advocate of global warming, one acts as a denier and one sits on the fence and goes back and forth. “This is a nice style because it presents both sides of the argument in a debate format.” The premise of the book is that there is now so much science that anyone, not just scientists, can prove man made global warming is real. “There is simply no science to support the claims of the deniers, but massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public,” said Keating.

Keating is so sure of his claim that he has issued two challenges to the deniers, one that will pay $10,000 to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method that man made climate change is not real; and one that will pay $1000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that it isn’t real. The challenge is open to anyone over 18 and there is no entry fee. “I will judge all entries and show why they fail or succeed in the challenge. Entries don’t even have to be original. They just have to be first.”

Keating says he is more than willing to pay the money but doesn’t believe it will happen, “I’m a scientist and I have to go where the science leads me. I have been studying climate change for a long time and I am certain my money is safe. They are in the business of denial and deception, not science. But, if someone could give me a scientific proof global warming isn’t real, it would be worth the money.”

With so many deceived people posting here I wonder what they will say about this. :colbert:
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
So one true believer says the deniers are engaging in the same kind of campaign of tobacco. And that's relevant how?
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Can we point to the funding sources of the climate change proponents?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Keating is so sure of his claim that he has issued two challenges to the deniers, one that will pay $10,000 to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method that man made climate change is not real; and one that will pay $1000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that it isn’t real. The challenge is open to anyone over 18 and there is no entry fee. “I will judge all entries and show why they fail or succeed in the challenge. Entries don’t even have to be original. They just have to be first.”

And I am sure he will be totally unbiased :D
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,285
10,584
136
With so many deceived people posting here I wonder what they will say about this. :colbert:

Can't speak for anyone else, but my dissent is based on scientific evidence supporting an alternative theory re: observed 20th century temperature. So long as this pause continues, empirical observations support my side over your side's failed models.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png


Where do I submit my evidence to collect my $1000?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
If you believe in the debunked "science" of global warming, climate change climate disruption, why the need to convince everyone that they must subscribe to your beliefs? When the Jehovah Witness believers come knocking on my door on the occasional Saturday, I don't answer and they just leave. They are bright enough to not keep pounding on the door or returning over and over and over. Quit trying to force your religious beliefs on me climate disruption fanatics. I'm very happy to let you have your belief, why are you so adamant that I can't have mine? I'm tired of being persecuted for my beliefs.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
If you believe in the debunked "science" of global warming, climate change climate disruption, why the need to convince everyone that they must subscribe to your beliefs? When the Jehovah Witness believers come knocking on my door on the occasional Saturday, I don't answer and they just leave. They are bright enough to not keep pounding on the door or returning over and over and over. Quit trying to force your religious beliefs on me climate disruption fanatics. I'm very happy to let you have your belief, why are you so adamant that I can't have mine? I'm tired of being persecuted for my beliefs.

Its a crusade, you fight to the death of every last man or until the city burnt to the ground and there isn't anything left to fight for.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png


Where do I submit my evidence to collect my $1000?
Oh, Roy Spencer. You've got a real winner there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Climate_change

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover. This view contradicts the scientific consensus that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

Spencer on Intelligent Design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Intelligent_design

In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college." In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.

Edit:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

Spencer was originally known for his work on satellite measurements. In the early 1990s, Spencer and John Christy published a few papers looking at the discrepancy of satellite measurements of temperature in the troposphere versus surface warming. This was an important problem in climatology and, since then, there has been voluminous literature published on the topic. The consistent finding has been that the discrepancy was due to instrumental error in the satellite measurements and some methodological problems in Spencer and Christy's work. Further adjustment has reduced the disparity to be in line with models. The "satellite measurements show no warming" PRATT was latched onto by denialists who continued to use Spencer's dated research and ignore all further research (unless it has to do with the "tropical/tropospheric hot spot" of course). Since planting himself firmly in the denialist camp, Spencer has parroted this claim repeatedly as well.

His more recent argument is based in part on Richard Lindzen's research on cloud feedback. Spencer claims that climate sensitivity is being vastly overestimated because clouds will have a much higher negative net feedback than current estimates. Cloud feedbacks are a favorite topic of deniers due to the fact that there is less literature on the subject than other areas global warming, allowing them to thump the uncertainty tactic continuously. Spencer's arguments for the feedbacks themselves, however, are full of statistical tomfoolery, fiddling with math, and heaps of equivocation. He then heaps more bullshit on top of this, shoehorning in the old canards about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). And voila, global warming isn't a problem! Of course, PDO is an oscillation, not a trend, and so cannot account for the current trend of warming.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,734
16,044
146
Can we point to the funding sources of the climate change proponents?

science is a liberal conspiracy. didn't you hear?


Sure did! xBiffx just brushed upon the topic!

Btw - Michael Mann - looks like he got funding through various universities and govt agencies including Dept of Energy.

James Hansen - looks like he was funded through NASA. Working on the first GISS. Of course this was during the notoriously liberal Reagan years so what do you expect.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,553
48,077
136
Yes... those attacks sure stop us from seeing the data...

The image at the top of your post speaks louder.

As has been explained at length in other threads using the current "pause" in surface warming as reason (and the resultant departure from many climate models) to say MMGW is not happening is a seriously flawed conclusion since other indicators (ice mass reduction, sea level rise, etc) continue apace in the expected direction.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Yes... those attacks sure stop us from seeing the data...

The image at the top of your post speaks louder.

xBiffx and I just had a discussion about this topic. The current climate models are very complex, and are likely not incorporating all the necessary variables. There is also the issue to natural variations and you must look at the data over a very long period of time for the models to be wrong or right.

Things like the oceans ability to absorb heat, and atmospheric particulate matter turn out to be much bigger factors that was realized.

Don't forget, that these models are to track the climate, and not "global warming". Right now, our models are not able to predict anything, but that will likely change. Just because the model is not accurate, does not mean that climate change is not happening, it just means we dont have a way to accurately predict the climate.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png


Where do I submit my evidence to collect my $1000?

Even if we accept that graph as 100% true... isn't that still showing warming happening? The observed lines are still trending upwards, just not as sharply as the projections. And it offers no explanation as to man-made vs natural climate change in the slightest, so it doesn't even fit the parameters of the challenge.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,734
16,044
146
I did? Where? Hint: liberal not found.


Your question on funding sources for climate scientists. :\

But, I guess I misunderstood your point. There is nothing nefarious in the funding of MMGW climate scientists.

Glad we nipped that in the bud! :thumbsup:
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Yes... those attacks sure stop us from seeing the data...

The image at the top of your post speaks louder.
About that "image" you have so much faith in, did you even bother to read the quotes?
The consistent finding has been that the discrepancy was due to instrumental error in the satellite measurements and some methodological problems in Spencer and Christy's work. Further adjustment has reduced the disparity to be in line with models. The "satellite measurements show no warming" PRATT was latched onto by denialists who continued to use Spencer's dated research and ignore all further research (unless it has to do with the "tropical/tropospheric hot spot" of course). Since planting himself firmly in the denialist camp, Spencer has parroted this claim repeatedly as well.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
xBiffx and I just had a discussion about this topic. The current climate models are very complex, and are likely not incorporating all the necessary variables. There is also the issue to natural variations and you must look at the data over a very long period of time for the models to be wrong or right.

Things like the oceans ability to absorb heat, and atmospheric particulate matter turn out to be much bigger factors that was realized.


So you are arguing we don't understand all the necessary variables, but yet Global Warming must be true!!!!!!

Don't forget, that these models are to track the climate, and not "global warming". Right now, our models are not able to predict anything, but that will likely change. Just because the model is not accurate, does not mean that climate change is not happening, it just means we dont have a way to accurately predict the climate.

It seems to me like they are doing a lot better job of tracking "global warming" than the actual climate :D
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Even if we accept that graph as 100% true... isn't that still showing warming happening? The observed lines are still trending upwards, just not as sharply as the projections. And it offers no explanation as to man-made vs natural climate change in the slightest, so it doesn't even fit the parameters of the challenge.

A valid scientific theory must be falsifiable. It must be able to make valid predictions.

If 95% of your predictions based on a theory are false that would seem to constitute evidence against that theory.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
So you are arguing we don't understand all the necessary variables, but yet Global Warming must be true!!!!!!



It seems to me like they are doing a lot better job of tracking "global warming" than the actual climate :D

Its pretty easy to explain how we can measure something, but not understand it enough to predict it.

I'm going to use some of the same data that I used in a previous thread, but here we go.

last2000-large.jpg


Here we see a trend of the avg temp rising at a rate over the past 200 years that is not consistent with other historical trends. We do see changes more extreme, but those are preceded by natural events.

We can measure things pretty well at this point, but that is far easier than prediction. That is because prediction requires not only measurements but models. The models would require an understanding of very complex variables that we have only started to really look into. So yes, you can see global warming, and not be able to predict it. Just like you can see when a person has died, but you may not be able to predict it.