Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/

Saturday, 18 December 2010

Background for teachers: smear-tactics against critics of CO2-alarmism

The logical legerdemain of 'appeal to authority' is widely used by scaremongers about CO2 in the air, and is easily spotted (e.g. 'the IPCC says...', as if the IPCC were worthy of trust!, or the appallingly misleading '97% of climate scientists agree...', as if a self-selected tiny-minority response to an obscure questionnaire had inductive merit).  Perhaps less obvious, if more unpleasant, are the smear tactics to discredit 'opponents' (for the alarmist are waging a battle, as they solipsistically see it).  A blogger called Russell Cook has collected examples of this , and has written several essays to draw attention to them:

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1939-post-11632.html#pid11632

Examples of his output, these ones all being published on American Thinker:

And his latest one there :http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/the_case_of_the_curious_climat.html


An extract:


'Untold numbers of well-informed individuals are rolling their eyes about how all the ‘warming planet' warnings abysmally failing to happen, like low lying islands swamped by rising seas, more frequent and intense hurricanes, and the Arctic starting down the path of being ice-free in the summer -- a process less likely to happen since the big ice cube up there keeps getting bigger each winter.

Eyes roll, but tough questions aren't being asked about the origins of faith-based organizations' climate change concerns, so those ideas are allowed to spread, ultimately corrupting a perfectly unsuspecting Advent season.

The question is: what prompts this faith-based concern about an essentially political issue?

The USA Today article says,

Many of the 10,000 congregations involved in Interfaith Power and Light have joined a Carbon Covenant...

Click on the link for "Carbon Covenant" at the article's page and you are taken to the Interfaith Power and Light web page. Click on IP&L's Resources link and continue to their "Building" page, and the #2 link is for a PDF file of "Bottom Line Ministries that Matter: Congregational Stewardship with Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy Technologies" by the National Council of Churches' Eco-Justice Program. A handy online version of that PDF file shows it was prepared by Matthew Anderson-Stembridge and Phil D. Radford, with absolutely no reference of who they both are.'
Cook goes on to explain just who they are, and it makes for an interesting read.

4 comments:

  1. Well for me teacher should give more benefits cause without them well don't have many great Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses, and etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps for you guys over on the other side of the pond, it might be a matter of curiosity about how UK Greenpeace / WWF activist Andrew Rowell was able to cite the "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact" accusation phrase on page 142 of his 1996 book "Green backlash: global subversion of the environmental movement". His book was published 7 months before Ross Gelbspan, the man who ultimately made the phrase so famous that it ended up in Al Gore's movie.

    Similar to Gelbspan's book, Rowell only refers to the source for the phrase as coming from "ICE internal packet, Strategies, p. 3", but never bothers to say how or where he viewed the ICE documents. Might be interesting for investigative journalists find out if Rowell is sorely disappointed about NOT being the person everyone else on the internet thanks for being the one who 'unearthed' the phrase that ended up in an award-winning movie....

    ReplyDelete
  3. The link at the top of your blog has since gone non-functional. The new link for "The '96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists" is http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1939-post-11632.html#pid11632

    ReplyDelete