Adjust text size:
With the release of the climate-related email stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and the discovery of minor errors in a report produced by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), many critics to global warming believe they have uncovered some sort of conspiracy. I have often received comments on climate change-related articles asking me if I am a part of the global conspiracy, and I have always responded by asking these people who stands to gain from the alleged conspiracy. When you devise a plot on this scale, someone stands to gain considerably, and yet I haven't received a single straight answer.
Recently, after the Climategate scandal broke (because certain media channels really love the word “-gate” attached to everything), those who contest the validity of climate change and global warming for various reasons have started foreseeing the end of the conspiracy. Some have even wrote that the “caste of cards” is coming down and that the world is beginning to see the “truth.” In my opinion, it takes a lot of nerve and straight-out ignorance to make such statements, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary. Why people think they know best when they haven't got the slightest connection with a certain domain of science is beyond me.
Many people have watched conservative talk shows, such as the ones on the entertainment channel Fox News, where hosts such as Glenn Beck, who are promoting their own agendas, and are also known for their conservative views, started spreading misinformation by the ton. To tell you the truth, if someone told me that I am a journalist, and that Mr. Beck was one too, I would be ashamed. If this is what reporting is, then I am glad to say I am in another field of work. The manner in which the news of the email scandal was presented in mainstream news outlets is simply disgusting. Many reporters who were involved in presenting the “facts” didn't have the slightest clue about what a scientific study was.
They cling on to some words they find offensive, and then build an entire story (or rather fairytale) based on that. So many things about the letters and the IPCC report have been blown out of proportions, that people have began to question science altogether. And this is a real pity, because, if we turn our face from it again, as we did centuries ago, we can easily fall back into superstition and centralized leadership of the kind we don't want. For example, many people believe that the cooler winter that we experienced is a sign that the planet is not warming.
This denotes the most basic lack of knowledge on how the atmosphere works. Of course there will be more precipitations if the winter is wetter. And the winter is wetter because the climate is getting warmer. This isn't too difficult to see, but unfortunately people have lost their objectivity. It is partially their fault, partially the fault of scientists who don't do a great job at public relations, partially the fault of politicians who follow their own interests rather than the common good, and partially the fault of the media, as many outlets have lost sight of what presenting the news in a balanced manner means.
Showing both sides of the argument doesn't mean showing people on the street giving their two cents. This should be the last thing on the list. When you present an issue such as global warming, you bring scientists with decades of expertise, who argue with each others in scientific terms, and not appeal to emotions. How you feel about an issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is real or not. Just because some people believe global warming is not happening, and spend their time online on any websites they can find saying that, they cannot erase decades of ground- and satellite-based data.
Just a few days ago, climate scientists met at a hastily organized conference, put together by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in San Diego. All participants expressed great concerns as to how the media covered the last few months, when climate critics used every little error or glitch in the data they could find to argue that climate change was not happening. Because many critics are paid off, and belong to groups that specialize in public communication (the modern term for propaganda), they can spin the story in such a manner that appeals to people's emotions, without actually conveying any form of scientific content.
And people fall for it. According to recent polls, a growing number of people in the United States, for example, are not only losing their belief that climate change is taking place as we speak, but also that science in general is not to be trusted. I would ask them, what else should you trust, if not people who have dedicated their lives to making your life, and that of our children, better? Should you maybe trust conservative politicians, and in 30 years' time live in a world covered in smoke? Or maybe religious groups that tell you you are too small to affect the Earth in any way?
It's true that warming and cooling cycles occur, and have done so for billions of years. They even take place on other planets. But this cannot be used as a pretext to cover up the influence that human activities have on the atmosphere. Never in the modern history of our planet – the last billion years for example – has a haze of obnoxious chemicals covered the vast majority of the Asian continent. That is man-made, as are the billions of tons of carbon dioxide that are being pumped in the atmosphere each year. They exceed the natural output of volcanic eruptions several times over, and promote massive changes in the atmosphere and the oceans.
There are at least several hundred studies that cover each of these particular changes. And this is where propaganda steps in. All this tremendous body of work is being cast aside with only a mention of a glitch that occurred in a report. No one is saying that critics and skeptics should not exist, they are arguably the most important part of the scientific process. But criticism must be constructive and to the point. You simply cannot say that global warming does not exist if one glacier is growing. There are variations in long-term trends, and each time one happens critics jump at the opportunity.
One glacier in Switzerland may be growing, but if Antarctica, the Arctic and Greenland are melting, then what is the overall trend? How people ignore this type of logical reasoning is beyond me. I am not talking about those who get paid good money to do so, but about those who process data on their own, and then draw their own conclusions. The best thing to ask yourself is the old Latin adagio “cui prodest?” meaning “who stands to gain?” This was the first thing judges in the old days asked accusers and defenders. This has held true over the ages, and now is more so than ever. When you see people on TV telling you that scientists are the devil and that oil company- and conservative-sponsored lobby groups are your friends and guardians, maybe you should be asking who stands to lose if these interest groups win.
MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:
|Comment #1 by: Andrew30 on 21 Feb 2010, 02:35 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The ice caps melt. The water is pulled to the Equator, this raises the tides. With the increased mass at a slightly increased distance from the rotational axis of the Earth the Earths rotation slows to maintain angular velocity. Since the force of gravity is inversely proportional to distance; the pull on the Moon in increased slightly by the bulge of water at the Equator. This combined with the slowing of the rotation of the Earth increases the pull on the Moon and slows the Moons orbit. The Moons orbit decays and it slowly begins to fall into the Earth. It eventually strikes the Earth and the combined mass of the Earth and the Moon in the existing Earth orbit, with the orbital velocity of the Earth, are not sufficient to maintain an orbit around the Sun, so the Earth is pulled into the Sun.
If we do not stop breathing the Earth will fall in to the Sun.
Let’s see the IPCC top that one!
|Comment #2 by: aol on 21 Feb 2010, 03:14 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Another apologist for a rapidly eroding religion. This is getting embarrassing.
|Comment #3 by: Alan Esworthy on 21 Feb 2010, 03:18 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I fully intended to read this article but could not get past the very first sentence. Tell us, Vieru, do you know who Dr. Murari Lal is? If not, you should. He was the coordinating lead author for the Asian section of the IPCC's report of 2007. Do you know what he said, on the record, about the inclusion of the statement that Himalayan glaciers may be gone by 2035? If not, you should. He told David Rose, of the UK Sunday Mail, that he knew there was no credible data to support the claim. He also said (and notice that this is a quotation), "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
This is unambiguous: The inclusion of the 2035 date was deliberate and not a mistake. They knew it was unsupported by any evidence. And there were more than one of them involved; note the first person plural pronoun.
It is not that skeptics have "uncovered some sort of conspiracy" as much as one of the lead conspirators admitting to the conspiracy to the world.
|Comment #4 by: patcap on 21 Feb 2010, 04:52 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Oh please. Dedicating their lives to make our lives and those of our children better? Yea, that and justifying their existence to get grant money. How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously after spewing drivel like that? What happened to objectivity in journalism? For a decent interview that is even handed in its tone (unlike this one) check out the BBC interview with Phil Jones from last week.
|Comment #5 by: a dood on 21 Feb 2010, 05:16 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Glaciers have been melting for thousands of years, now.
|Comment #6 by: Dave McK on 21 Feb 2010, 05:22 UTC|| reply to this comment|
" When you devise a plot on this scale, someone stands to gain considerably, and yet I haven't received a single straight answer."
Hang out with some straight people, sometime.
Carbon derivatives. You can't even count that high.
I know your pretense that you couldn't possible imagine a motive for fraud was blatantly fake, too. Making such a deal out of ignoring the obvious begs for explanation.
|Comment #7 by: Andrew30 on 21 Feb 2010, 06:23 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Climatology: The spice for data:
Note: Released by NASA under FOI.
Subject: Re: Your Reply to: GISS Temperature Correction Problem?
From: Gavin Schmidt firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 19 Feb 2008 14:38:47 -0500
I had a look at the data, and this whole business seems to be related to the infilling of seasonal and annual means. There is no evidence for any step change in any of the individual months.
The only anomalous point (which matches nearby deltas) is for Set 2005. Given the large amount of missing data in lampasas this gets propagated to the annual (D-N) mean – I think – with a little more weight then in the nearby stations. The other factor might be that lampasas is overall cooling, if we use climatology to infill in recent years, that might give a warm bias. But I’m not sure on how the filling-in happens.
So remember if you find the temperature data is cooling off, just add a little “climatology” it will warm things up nicely.
|Comment #8 by: Dennis on 21 Feb 2010, 06:58 UTC|| reply to this comment|
so are you saying that after watching these two videos you still hold the same view?
|Comment #9 by: HerbM on 21 Feb 2010, 13:23 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The first sentence isn't even based on facts: No one has shown the emails were even stolen.
The emails however have shown that the supporters of AGW are working from their conclusion to decide which data to use (or lose, or invent), and that they are willing to lie or cheat to make the case.
|Comment #10 by: Kelly on 21 Feb 2010, 15:49 UTC|| reply to this comment|
"discovery of minor errors in a report produced by the UN"
Minor errors? What a joke!!! Meltwater from the Himalayan glaciers feeds into the eight big rivers in Asia. More than 1.3 billion people rely on this water for drinking and food production.
Sound like a major error to me. I'm sure the 1.3 billions people that rely on this water do too. It's time the UN stops trying to scare people and stick to the facts. That is why they have no credibility right now. They are a bunch or fear mongers, scammers, and snake oil salesman.
|Comment #11 by: Kelly on 21 Feb 2010, 15:50 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Shouldn't the title really be:
"How Global-Warming 'Doomers' Distort the Truth"
|Comment #12 by: Kelly on 21 Feb 2010, 16:02 UTC|| reply to this comment|
"One glacier in Switzerland may be growing"
Where do you get your facts?
Here is a list of some glaciers that are growing:
Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier
is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
which has steadily increased in mass since the
1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)
Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
17 Nov 08 – The ice-covered peak of Yukon's soaring Mount Logan
may be due for an official re-measurement after readings that suggest
this country's superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.
See Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
I could list more but instead I will direct you to this site:
Here is info on the Antartic glacier, it is growing also:
I mean really please change the article title to:
"How Global Warming 'Doomers' distort the truth"
|Comment #13 by: Brer Fox on 21 Feb 2010, 16:51 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Actually, the skeptics are not a problem. All true scientists are skeptics.
The real problem we have is that people were paid a huge sum of money to find AGW. If they didn't find it the money dried up. If one reads the emails, which it appear now to have been left on an open ftp site, the complete story unfolds before your eyes.
In the emails the CRU group discuss, tax evasion, subverting the peer review process, fraudulently gathering signatures on the Kyoto petition of 1600 "scientists", FOIA violations, data destruction, manipulating data, destroying data, blackballing other scientists, colluding to get each other awards, ignoring data that didn't agree with their theory, manipulating the press, and the list goes on and on. Not one skeptic involved in the emails. How to shut them up is all over the place. CRU could not stand investigation. If AGW was true they would have been looking for someone to demonstrate an error because the consequences would have been so disastrous.
The errors of the IPCC were not few and were deliberate. Your computer does not have enough hard drive to store the all the problems with the false claims of the AGW group.
Phil Jones, caught in the act, did what was right. Once cornered, he started to tell the truth. There has been no warming for 15 years, Mediaeval Warming period did exist, FOIA Violations, and so forth.
Bottom line to all of this, there are still those who have been brainwashed, and believe with a religious fervor, that AGW is real.
Mostly they are uninformed adults and children in the late teens and early 20s.
Thank goodness they are few and their cause of world socialism is crumbling.
|Comment #14 by: riseing scientist on 21 Feb 2010, 21:00 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The wierd thing about the entire issue is that every website and scientific paper I have read has given me a different rate of climate change and all that can be extracted is that the climate is changeing. I have also read that the computers used to model climate change do not have enough power to take into account all of the factors involved and cannot bring accurate conclusions.
|Comment #15 by: JERRY on 22 Feb 2010, 04:33 UTC|| reply to this comment|
There was a show on recently showing the people who are making tons of money from the global warming fallacies. As always follow the money.
|Comment #16 by: J Ryan on 22 Feb 2010, 16:07 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Who stands to gain?
The charlatans who are pushing "green business", that's who. Need to save the world? Boy have we got a swirly light bulb for you! It's gonna cost you a lot extra though and that mercury level is a bit concerning, but hey, you don't want to kill penguins, do you??
Want to build a mansion and fly around the world telling people they need to change their habits? Invest in some "carbon credits"!
Just give us money and we'll take care of it all for you?
Oh, who stands to gain from publishing reports that fall in line with the party call? The scientists who's grants and research funding come from the people who need the green movement to push their carbon credit stocks up.
Consider Penn State and their review of Micheal Mann's academic work....now why in the world would their review conclude that he's a fraud and needs to be dismissed? That's MILLIONS in research grants Penn State would be throwing out the door. Instead, it's a whitewash review that "finds no academic misconduct" when anyone with the internet and access to his emails can tell you that he was up to all sorts of tomfoolery.
|Comment #17 by: Tudor Vieru on 23 Feb 2010, 07:52 UTC|| reply to this comment|
"It is a trusty rule of human conduct that the less a man knows about a controversial subject, the more emotional, dogmatic and violent he becomes when it is brought up" L. Sprague de Camp, author of "The Ape-Man Within"
|Comment #18 by: Bill Stone on 27 Feb 2010, 22:29 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Thank you Tudor Vieru for the excellent posting. As you can see, rationality and civility are not a strong points for many of the postings.
|Comment #19 by: RYAN on 04 Mar 2010, 15:52 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Let us rethink what does increase in carbon dioxide does to the atmosphere?
It increases the global temperature by 'GREENHOUSE EFFECT' that is equivalent to longer hotter summers and shorter colder winters.We see in day to day news the changing climate and the only accurate calculations that the present technology can make is the amount of CO2 which has increased drastically. If we look at our sister planet VENUS we see that the CO2 atmosphere has caused it to have a high surface temperature.Use your logical reasoning and decide for your self is it good to use the FOSSIL FUELS to increase the CO2 or should you be more concerned about reducing the carbon footprint.
It is not actually who gains from it but actually who looses from it.The OIL COMPANIES which has a firm standing in global market.What happens when there is a move to Greener Technologies?What will happen to the OIL COMPANIES?
THINK OVER IT...
|Comment #19.1 by: grn on 28 Mar 2010, 10:07 GMT|
Is there any future for Oil Companies any ways?
I mean for the last forty five years, we have been listening to how scarce the fossil fuels are and that they wouldn't last beyond 2020!!! It is impossible to know the truth. Corporate Cartel makes news, propagandas, beliefs, and even truth.
Well, finish off all the fuel and there you are: you have a Green Planet for ever.
|Comment #20 by: grn on 28 Mar 2010, 09:54 UTC|| reply to this comment|
To add to this, Global Warming is the only way the developed nations can pressurise(read arm twist) the developing/under-developed ones to put a cap on their industrial progress.
Any fall in dominance of the now-already-developed economies will bring immediate doom to them. The financial melt-down is an example.
|Comment #21 by: Fraud! on 02 Nov 2010, 00:35 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I've taken a long look at alot of new and old climate research and find the warming effects of co2 to be lacking at best. I no longer believe that co2 either man made or natural have any effect at all on earths climate system. Nasa geophysicist Phil Chapman, Nasa Chief administrator John Theon among many others at Nasa are now saying this has been a hoax perpetrated by a small gruop of scientists and many of the climatologists and geophysicists at Nasa now say it's total fraud. In addition, the International geological Congress in Nov.2008 showed that 68% of the top international geophysicists on earth are also claiming it's a fraud. In any event, there is no consensus at all among geophysicists that global warming is real. Quite to the contrary, the consensus of todays top scientists in atmospheric research, climatology, astrophysics, geophysics is that this is a hoax . 68% of Geophysicists? This is what they do, there the best in the world and they say fraud!
|Comment #22 by: tired of the lies, from liers on 17 Jul 2011, 23:10 UTC|| reply to this comment|
simple: many people stand to become very wealthy with their lies of global warming. the planet doesn't need saved, it will always be here. the question is where are they going after their life is over, it sounds like a place that's very warm.
Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at