Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

HOW A PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER DISCOVERED THE LIES AND DECIDED TO FIGHT FOR SCIENCE
Sharon Lerner
April 28 2017, 12:04 p.m.


JT: In our business, talking to Republican and conservative elites, talking about the science in a dispassionate, reasonable, non-screedy, calm, careful way is powerful, because a lot of these people have no idea that a lot of the things they’re trafficking in are either the sheerest nonsense or utterly disingenuous.

I also make the conservative case for climate change. We don’t call people conservative when they put all their chips on one number of a roulette wheel. That’s not conservative. It’s pretty frigging crazy. It’s dangerous, risky. Conservatives think this way about foreign policy. We know that if North Korea has a nuclear weapon, they’re probably not going to use it. But we don’t act as if that’s a certainty. We hedge our bets. Climate change is like that. We don’t know exactly what’s going to happen. Given that fact, shouldn’t we hedge?

SL: I frequently hear about Republican lawmakers who don’t believe their own climate denials. Do you know many people who are in that camp?

JT: I have talked to many of them in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They’re all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they’ve been put into by the Tea Party. But they’re not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open.

SL: When do you think these Republicans will come out about their concern about climate change?

JT: The wall of denial in the GOP looks awful frightening from afar but it is crumbling. And it can change quickly. People forget that it was only a decade ago that the party had a climate platform that could have been written by Sheldon Whitehouse. And during the last election cycle, Carlos Curbelo, Ryan Costello, and Rob Portman all ran as climate moderates and paid no political price.

SL: And then there’s the president, who claimed climate change is a Chinese hoax. What about changing his mind?

JT: Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate.

kalm wrote:It sounds like he applied some logic. I've always been baffled by the notion that climate change denial is a conservative ideal. The part in the article about Goldman Sachs and risk assessment also makes quite a bit of sense.

HOW A PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER DISCOVERED THE LIES AND DECIDED TO FIGHT FOR SCIENCE
Sharon Lerner
April 28 2017, 12:04 p.m.


JT: In our business, talking to Republican and conservative elites, talking about the science in a dispassionate, reasonable, non-screedy, calm, careful way is powerful, because a lot of these people have no idea that a lot of the things they’re trafficking in are either the sheerest nonsense or utterly disingenuous.

I also make the conservative case for climate change. We don’t call people conservative when they put all their chips on one number of a roulette wheel. That’s not conservative. It’s pretty frigging crazy. It’s dangerous, risky. Conservatives think this way about foreign policy. We know that if North Korea has a nuclear weapon, they’re probably not going to use it. But we don’t act as if that’s a certainty. We hedge our bets. Climate change is like that. We don’t know exactly what’s going to happen. Given that fact, shouldn’t we hedge?

SL: I frequently hear about Republican lawmakers who don’t believe their own climate denials. Do you know many people who are in that camp?

JT: I have talked to many of them in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They’re all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they’ve been put into by the Tea Party. But they’re not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open.

SL: When do you think these Republicans will come out about their concern about climate change?

JT: The wall of denial in the GOP looks awful frightening from afar but it is crumbling. And it can change quickly. People forget that it was only a decade ago that the party had a climate platform that could have been written by Sheldon Whitehouse. And during the last election cycle, Carlos Curbelo, Ryan Costello, and Rob Portman all ran as climate moderates and paid no political price.

SL: And then there’s the president, who claimed climate change is a Chinese hoax. What about changing his mind?

JT: Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how ... r-science/

Spoiler: show

ALEC
Heartland Institute
Exxon
Cato
Koch Industries

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:It sounds like he applied some logic. I've always been baffled by the notion that climate change denial is a conservative ideal. The part in the article about Goldman Sachs and risk assessment also makes quite a bit of sense.



https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how ... r-science/

Is that a whiff of Fake News in the air?

This guy infers that James Hansen as the main reason he "changed" his mind. James Hansen is the guy who cooked the books in the Climategate scandal.

HI54UNI wrote:Lots of liberal trigger words in that article. I put them in a spoiler so we don't scare the snowflakes.

Spoiler: show

ALEC
Heartland Institute
Exxon
Cato
Koch Industries

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Is that a whiff of Fake News in the air?

This guy infers that James Hansen as the main reason he "changed" his mind. James Hansen is the guy who cooked the books in the Climategate scandal.

You allege "fake news" and then turn to Climategate as supporting evidence?

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
You allege "fake news" and then turn to Climategate as supporting evidence?

So, Climategate didn't happen?

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: So, Climategate didn't happen?

What was the final outcome and how did invalidate the global warming consensus?

cx500d wrote:

kalm wrote:
What was the final outcome and how did invalidate the global warming consensus?

Consensus implies everyone backs the science. That is simply untrue; there is no consensus on this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... nown-today

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/2 ... nown-today

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... free-2013/

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -2016-melt

And don't forget the chief liar

phpBB [video]

kalm wrote:

cx500d wrote: Consensus implies everyone backs the science. That is simply untrue; there is no consensus on this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definition of consensus
1
a : general agreement : unanimity
the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead

Just because the costs and the benefits are more or less going to be a wash, he said, that doesn’t mean that the losers in climate change are just going to have to suck it up so Exxon and Koch Industries can make a good chunk of money.

We don’t know what’s going to happen in any given year in the market. There’s a distribution of possible outcomes. You have to consider the entire distribution of possible outcomes when you make decisions like this.” After he left my office, I said “there’s nothing but rubble here.”

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Kerry claims the Arctic will be ice-free by summer 2013
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... free-2013/

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -2016-melt

And don't forget the chief liar

phpBB [video]

So that means the Economist (not exactly a hair on fire liberal mag, btw) is wrong about 50% of the ice disappearing over the last 30 years?

JohnStOnge wrote:The biggest issue I have with what he said involves this paragraph:

Just because the costs and the benefits are more or less going to be a wash, he said, that doesn’t mean that the losers in climate change are just going to have to suck it up so Exxon and Koch Industries can make a good chunk of money.

First of all, I don't think he made the case for the idea that the costs and benefits are going to be a wash. Secondly, it's not just Exxon and Koch industries. We ALL depend heavily on fossil fuels. I think we can all agree that if fossil fuels were to suddenly become unavailable tomorrow it would be a complete disaster. Life as we know it could not continue.

It's not like phasing out fossil fuels affects only the "fat cats" at Exxon and the Koch brothers.

The second biggest thing involves this statement:

We don’t know what’s going to happen in any given year in the market. There’s a distribution of possible outcomes. You have to consider the entire distribution of possible outcomes when you make decisions like this.” After he left my office, I said “there’s nothing but rubble here.”

I don't think the standard "climate change" concern narrative involves considering the entire distribution of possible outcomes. I think It focuses on a particular set of negative scenarios.

CID1990 wrote:I get my "science" minded colleagues (I'm one too, actually) in a lather when they bring up climate change by asking them to tell me exactly what effects we will see as a result of anthropogenic change.

Then I remind them that there is only one scientifically known, hard fact... then one scientifically supported, widely accepted theory... and then finally there are hundreds of hypotheses which are unproven and some have actually been disproven.

They are as follows:

1. Climate change is real. It has been happening since the earth acquired an atmosphere. (This is the fact)

2. Human activity does have an effect on climate (this is the scientifically supported, accepted theory- not proven, but the available evidence tilts heavily in that direction)

3. Here come the hypotheses- a currently debunked one: the hockey stick... publish a negative peer review and the author will haul you into court for defamation (heh)

Or, "cities will be inundated"... with all the massive melt we've seen, we should already be seeing some rise

Or, superstorms

Or, major topographical changes

Or, et cetera

Right now climate change is being blamed for everything from tennis elbow to the price of theater tickets

At the end of the day it doesnt matter, because the solution, if AGW is in fact going to greatly alter the planet, is to reduce our population to around 5 billion and keep it there.

And, if it IS possible for human activity to wreck the planet given the right levels, then eventually we will reach that point, regardless of what we do.

Is there a country currently in existence with the political will to reduce our world population, maintain it at that level, and simultaneously make us impact-free in terms of climate? Or are there two countries with the capability to cooperate to do this without the consent of the rest of the world?

This climate bickering is pointless if we stop and think logically about it - if tomorrow, every person suddenly sees the light and agrees that humans are changing the climate in catastrophic ways.... does it matter?

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: So, Climategate didn't happen?

What was the final outcome and how did invalidate the global warming consensus?

Vidav wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I get my "science" minded colleagues (I'm one too, actually) in a lather when they bring up climate change by asking them to tell me exactly what effects we will see as a result of anthropogenic change.

Then I remind them that there is only one scientifically known, hard fact... then one scientifically supported, widely accepted theory... and then finally there are hundreds of hypotheses which are unproven and some have actually been disproven.

They are as follows:

1. Climate change is real. It has been happening since the earth acquired an atmosphere. (This is the fact)

2. Human activity does have an effect on climate (this is the scientifically supported, accepted theory- not proven, but the available evidence tilts heavily in that direction)

3. Here come the hypotheses- a currently debunked one: the hockey stick... publish a negative peer review and the author will haul you into court for defamation (heh)

Or, "cities will be inundated"... with all the massive melt we've seen, we should already be seeing some rise

Or, superstorms

Or, major topographical changes

Or, et cetera

Right now climate change is being blamed for everything from tennis elbow to the price of theater tickets

At the end of the day it doesnt matter, because the solution, if AGW is in fact going to greatly alter the planet, is to reduce our population to around 5 billion and keep it there.

And, if it IS possible for human activity to wreck the planet given the right levels, then eventually we will reach that point, regardless of what we do.

Is there a country currently in existence with the political will to reduce our world population, maintain it at that level, and simultaneously make us impact-free in terms of climate? Or are there two countries with the capability to cooperate to do this without the consent of the rest of the world?

This climate bickering is pointless if we stop and think logically about it - if tomorrow, every person suddenly sees the light and agrees that humans are changing the climate in catastrophic ways.... does it matter?

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why doesn't it matter?

cx500d wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:The biggest issue I have with what he said involves this paragraph:



First of all, I don't think he made the case for the idea that the costs and benefits are going to be a wash. Secondly, it's not just Exxon and Koch industries. We ALL depend heavily on fossil fuels. I think we can all agree that if fossil fuels were to suddenly become unavailable tomorrow it would be a complete disaster. Life as we know it could not continue.

It's not like phasing out fossil fuels affects only the "fat cats" at Exxon and the Koch brothers.

The second biggest thing involves this statement:



I don't think the standard "climate change" concern narrative involves considering the entire distribution of possible outcomes. I think It focuses on a particular set of negative scenarios.

We will go to the poorhouse because alternative energy is not profitable without mammoth government subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:I get my "science" minded colleagues (I'm one too, actually) in a lather when they bring up climate change by asking them to tell me exactly what effects we will see as a result of anthropogenic change.

Then I remind them that there is only one scientifically known, hard fact... then one scientifically supported, widely accepted theory... and then finally there are hundreds of hypotheses which are unproven and some have actually been disproven.

They are as follows:

1. Climate change is real. It has been happening since the earth acquired an atmosphere. (This is the fact)

2. Human activity does have an effect on climate (this is the scientifically supported, accepted theory- not proven, but the available evidence tilts heavily in that direction)

3. Here come the hypotheses- a currently debunked one: the hockey stick... publish a negative peer review and the author will haul you into court for defamation (heh)

Or, "cities will be inundated"... with all the massive melt we've seen, we should already be seeing some rise

Or, superstorms

Or, major topographical changes

Or, et cetera

Right now climate change is being blamed for everything from tennis elbow to the price of theater tickets

At the end of the day it doesnt matter, because the solution, if AGW is in fact going to greatly alter the planet, is to reduce our population to around 5 billion and keep it there.

And, if it IS possible for human activity to wreck the planet given the right levels, then eventually we will reach that point, regardless of what we do.

Is there a country currently in existence with the political will to reduce our world population, maintain it at that level, and simultaneously make us impact-free in terms of climate? Or are there two countries with the capability to cooperate to do this without the consent of the rest of the world?

This climate bickering is pointless if we stop and think logically about it - if tomorrow, every person suddenly sees the light and agrees that humans are changing the climate in catastrophic ways.... does it matter?

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
What was the final outcome and how did invalidate the global warming consensus?

The outcome was just as I said. They were cooking the books.
Of course it's not going to invalidate their "consensus". Climate change theory has turned into a cash cow subsidized industry that rakes in untold billions and billions in government dollars.