• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How They Made Us Doubt Everything

S

Surface Detail

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
3,244
Reaction score
1,232
Location
English Midlands
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I've not been here in a while, having become bored of repeatedly debunking the same old idiotic arguments from the denier mob, but I though this might be of interest to the forum (especially those living in the UK). It's a programme currently being aired on BBC Radio 4 and worth a listen. The synopsis:

"How some of the world's most powerful interests made us doubt the connection between smoking and cancer, and then how the same tactics were used to make us doubt climate change."

BBC Radio 4 - How They Made Us Doubt Everything

The parallels between the campaigns to discredit the science exposing the dangers of smoking and the science behind climate change are quite astonishing, and they have both been remarkably successful for the vested interests behind them. But of course, they have been disastrous for the millions of smokers who suffered ill health and early death as well as for future generations who will have to suffer from a ruined ecosystem. Evil is, I think, not too strong a word for the people behind these campaigns against humanity.
 
Surface Detail said:
I've not been here in a while, having become bored of repeatedly debunking the same old idiotic arguments from the denier mob, but I though this might be of interest to the forum (especially those living in the UK). It's a programme currently being aired on BBC Radio 4 and worth a listen. The synopsis:

"How some of the world's most powerful interests made us doubt the connection between smoking and cancer, and then how the same tactics were used to make us doubt climate change."

BBC Radio 4 - How They Made Us Doubt Everything

The parallels between the campaigns to discredit the science exposing the dangers of smoking and the science behind climate change are quite astonishing, and they have both been remarkably successful for the vested interests behind them. But of course, they have been disastrous for the millions of smokers who suffered ill health and early death as well as for future generations who will have to suffer from a ruined ecosystem. Evil is, I think, not too strong a word for the people behind these campaigns against humanity.
Click to expand...

Money, evil never comes into their minds, only money.
 
Surface Detail said:
I've not been here in a while, having become bored of repeatedly debunking the same old idiotic arguments from the denier mob, but I though this might be of interest to the forum (especially those living in the UK). It's a programme currently being aired on BBC Radio 4 and worth a listen. The synopsis:

"How some of the world's most powerful interests made us doubt the connection between smoking and cancer, and then how the same tactics were used to make us doubt climate change."

BBC Radio 4 - How They Made Us Doubt Everything

The parallels between the campaigns to discredit the science exposing the dangers of smoking and the science behind climate change are quite astonishing, and they have both been remarkably successful for the vested interests behind them. But of course, they have been disastrous for the millions of smokers who suffered ill health and early death as well as for future generations who will have to suffer from a ruined ecosystem. Evil is, I think, not too strong a word for the people behind these campaigns against humanity.
Click to expand...

Yep. I frequently point out that many of our climate change deniers sound just like those who defended smoking cigarettes.
 
The best comparison is to think of this tale as the climate believers' version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- false, poisonous and surprisingly durable.


  • Naomi Oreskes' Tale of Discovering Corrupt Skeptic Climate Scientists has a Fatal Glitch

    discovery of corrupted skeptic climate scientist ‘doubt merchants’ to a single sentence: ... scientific consensus paper and despise her "Merchants of Doubt" book for its unsupportable insinuation that

    dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the
  • Historian Naomi Oreskes fails in historical research

    known to climate realists by her 2010 book,Merchants of Doubt and its scurrilous demonization of climate ... the flaws in her work. [See this review of Merchants of Doubt by Dr. S. Fred Singer.]

    Lunatic. Her book Merchants of Doubt essentially claims three dead scientists
 
calamity said:
Yep. I frequently point out that many of our climate change deniers sound just like those who defended smoking cigarettes.
Click to expand...

My poor old dad went to his grave utterly convinced that smoking was harmless, despite the obvious damage it was doing to his health. Given a little gentle pushing from industry-funded "whitecoats", people can be made to doubt the most self-evident and scientifically supported truths: that smoking is unhealthy; that pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will have adverse effects.
 
Jack Hays said:
The best comparison is to think of this tale as the climate believers' version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- false, poisonous and surprisingly durable.


  • Naomi Oreskes' Tale of Discovering Corrupt Skeptic Climate Scientists has a Fatal Glitch

    discovery of corrupted skeptic climate scientist ‘doubt merchants’ to a single sentence: ... scientific consensus paper and despise her "Merchants of Doubt" book for its unsupportable insinuation that

    dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the
  • Historian Naomi Oreskes fails in historical research

    known to climate realists by her 2010 book,Merchants of Doubt and its scurrilous demonization of climate ... the flaws in her work. [See this review of Merchants of Doubt by Dr. S. Fred Singer.]

    Lunatic. Her book Merchants of Doubt essentially claims three dead scientists
Click to expand...

How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable

Documents uncovered by journalists and activists over the past decade lay out a clear strategy: First, target media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science, and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for media. Second, target conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.” In the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute, which hosts an annual International Conference on Climate Change known as the leading climate skeptics conference, for example, routinely calls out media outlets (including The Washington Post) for showing “bias” in covering climate change when they either decline to quote a skeptic or question a skeptic’s credibility.
Click to expand...

And, the lies continue being told, to this day.
How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation
 
Last edited:
The Climate Deception Dossiers offer documentation of decades of deception from the fossil fuel industry.

"Containing 85 internal memos totaling more than 330 pages, the seven dossiers reveal a range of deceptive tactics deployed by the fossil fuel industry. These include forged letters to Congress, secret funding of a supposedly independent scientist, the creation of fake grassroots organizations, multiple efforts to deliberately manufacture uncertainty about climate science, and more."

The Climate Deception Dossiers | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
calamity said:
How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable



And, the lies continue being told, to this day.
How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation
Click to expand...

Bergslagstroll said:
The Climate Deception Dossiers offer documentation of decades of deception from the fossil fuel industry.

"Containing 85 internal memos totaling more than 330 pages, the seven dossiers reveal a range of deceptive tactics deployed by the fossil fuel industry. These include forged letters to Congress, secret funding of a supposedly independent scientist, the creation of fake grassroots organizations, multiple efforts to deliberately manufacture uncertainty about climate science, and more."

The Climate Deception Dossiers | Union of Concerned Scientists
Click to expand...

These are the stories told to each other by believers to assure themselves their cause is holy. To one who is not touched by their faith, it seems clear there's much less there than meets the eye.
 
Jack Hays said:
These are the stories told to each other by believers to assure themselves their cause is holy. To one who is not touched by their faith, it seems clear there's much less there than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

:roll:


:lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
The best comparison is to think of this tale as the climate believers' version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- false, poisonous and surprisingly durable.


  • Naomi Oreskes' Tale of Discovering Corrupt Skeptic Climate Scientists has a Fatal Glitch

    discovery of corrupted skeptic climate scientist ‘doubt merchants’ to a single sentence: ... scientific consensus paper and despise her "Merchants of Doubt" book for its unsupportable insinuation that

    dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the
  • Historian Naomi Oreskes fails in historical research

    known to climate realists by her 2010 book,Merchants of Doubt and its scurrilous demonization of climate ... the flaws in her work. [See this review of Merchants of Doubt by Dr. S. Fred Singer.]

    Lunatic. Her book Merchants of Doubt essentially claims three dead scientists
Click to expand...

:lamo It's no surprise that the deniers get in a tizz when a light is shone on their nefarious behaviour. Fred Singer was one of the bought "whitecoats" in question, so he's hardly going to have an unbiased opinion, is he?
 
Science is not about faith, if catastrophic AGW is a valid theory, let it stand up to the rigors of actual scientific validation.
Move forward with a red team, blue team test!
 
Surface Detail said:
:lamo It's no surprise that the deniers get in a tizz when a light is shone on their nefarious behaviour. Fred Singer was one of the bought "whitecoats" in question, so he's hardly going to have an unbiased opinion, is he?
Click to expand...

Fox objects to being mischaracterized as robber of hen house
 
Surface Detail said:
:lamo It's no surprise that the deniers get in a tizz when a light is shone on their nefarious behaviour. Fred Singer was one of the bought "whitecoats" in question, so he's hardly going to have an unbiased opinion, is he?
Click to expand...

Not so much shining a light as slinging mud.

Slimed by Naomi Oreskes - In Defense of Dr. Fred Singer

[FONT=&quot]The [/FONT]Oreskes documentary calling Dr. Fred Singer a “Liar for Hire”[FONT=&quot] is a repeat of a nearly identical attack on him twenty years ago. An honorable newsman at that time debunked the attack and my research subsequently uncovered a genuine conspiracy of Big Green money and malice. While we consider legal action against the present vicious attack on Dr. Singer, I submit this short section from my book [/FONT]EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature [FONT=&quot]for your information along with the advice of DeepThroat: Follow The Money. . . . [/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Not so much shining a light as slinging mud.

Slimed by Naomi Oreskes - In Defense of Dr. Fred Singer[FONT=&]

[/FONT][FONT="]The [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://democracyastray.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-new-documentary-profiles-liars-for.html"]Oreskes documentary calling Dr. Fred Singer a “Liar for Hire”[/URL][FONT="] is a repeat of a nearly identical attack on him twenty years ago. An honorable newsman at that time debunked the attack and my research subsequently uncovered a genuine conspiracy of Big Green money and malice. While we consider legal action against the present vicious attack on Dr. Singer, I submit this short section from my book [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/20/slimed-by-naomi-oreskes-in-defense-of-dr-fred-singer/www.amazon.com/EcoTerror-Violent-Agenda-Nature-Unabomber/dp/0939571188/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&qid=1413830340&sr=1-1&keywords=EcoTerror"]EcoTerror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature [/URL][FONT="]for your information along with the advice of DeepThroat: Follow The Money. . . . [/FONT]
Click to expand...


Bull****, Jack. We all know that the oil industry put out a huge disinformation campaign to stifle conversation. Hell, you should know that more than anyone.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Bull****, Jack. We all know that the oil industry put out a huge disinformation campaign to stifle conversation. Hell, you should know that more than anyone.
Click to expand...

What I know is that your claim is a myth.
 
BBC Asks Dr. Willie Soon to Respond to Climate Conspiracy Claims

oil climate conspiracy propaganda piece. Dr. Willie Soon does not hold back in his response. ... This is a harmless artefact caused by copying Dr. Soon's email, click continue to see the referenced document


 
Jack Hays said:
BBC Asks Dr. Willie Soon to Respond to Climate Conspiracy Claims

[FONT=&]oil climate conspiracy propaganda piece. Dr. Willie Soon does not hold back in his response. ... This is a harmless artefact caused by copying Dr. Soon's email, click continue to see the referenced document

[/FONT]
Click to expand...
Willie Soon?

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
Click to expand...
That ^ Willie Soon?

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Well, Jack does prove one thing to us all. There is a ****-ton of money to be made in climate change denial.

BTW: I get paid handsomely to say good things about my company too, Jack. There certainly is nothing wrong with supporting those who feed you. However, I usually don't tell people I am doing impartial research while promoting the cause of my boss. :lamo
 
calamity said:
Willie Soon?

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

That ^ Willie Soon?



:lamo
Click to expand...
The article quote would have us to believe that Dr. Soon himself received $1.2 million from the fossil-fuel industry,
when in reality it was his employer Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who received grants.
Dr. Soon like any other researcher received a salary from his institution, and yes like any University,
some of that Salary was offset by grants to the institution.
I suspect, you would be hard pressed to find a University, that had not received grants from the fossil-fuel industry.
Exxon alone funds a large amount of research.
 
calamity said:
Willie Soon?

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

That ^ Willie Soon?



:lamo
Click to expand...

That's one of the clumsier and more comical smear attempts by alarmists.

Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon - Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead


[FONT=&quot]Guest Essay by Kip Hansen[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance:[/FONT]
[h=3]Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher[/h][FONT=&quot]By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ FEB. 21, 2015[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Instead, I simply let my title and the following excerpts from the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist lackeys: Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the NY Times, apparently didn’t actually read them – or they might have noticed that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves, might have uncovered the definition of “deliverables”….I can’t believe Gillis and Schwartz allowed themselves to be duped again. . . . [/FONT]
 
calamity said:
Well, Jack does prove one thing to us all. There is a ****-ton of money to be made in climate change denial.

BTW: I get paid handsomely to say good things about my company too, Jack. There certainly is nothing wrong with supporting those who feed you. However, I usually don't tell people I am doing impartial research while promoting the cause of my boss. :lamo
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of dishonesty and I'm usually pretty relaxed about it, but I do take offense when someone lies about me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom