When Deniers Deny Their Own
Who can you trust, if not your own advisers? That is the inconvenient question raised by NYT reporter Andrew C. Revkin in a newly published article that reveals the extent to which the coal and oil industries ignored the advice of their own scientists on the question of climate change.
The Global Climate Coalition (how's that for an Orwellian name?), an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own experts’ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change “could not be refuted.”
That’s right: even the scientists that these companies had consistently trotted out to discredit the findings of the IPCC could no longer deny the truth when faced with the hard facts. They acknowledged as much in an internal report released in 1995 in which they stated unequivocably that: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”
The advisory committee that authored the 17-page report may have disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusion that anthropogenic activities were warming the climate, but that did not mean that it hewed to the skeptic line. Indeed, though it recognized that “the contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” it dismissed them as unpersuasive at best – plainly stating that “they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”
When confronted with this frank assessment, the leadership of the Global Climate Coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the report’s existence from the public record. (What, you were expecting something else?) And, if that didn’t keep all the snooping reporters away, just play dumb – as William O’Keefe, the former head of the GCC, smartly demonstrates here:
“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”
So despite being proven wrong from the get-go, the GCC proceeded along its merry way, sowing confusion and dooming the government to protracted inaction. As George Monbiot astutely points out, Big Oil and Big Coal did not need to win the argument in order to win the debate: all they had to do was show up with a larger megaphone (and deeper pockets).
This again points to the utter failure of the mainstream media, which, in its overwrought efforts to give both “sides” of the argument a fair shake, legitimized the skeptics’ views and helped sow doubt. Or, as Attytood’s Will Bunch put it: “What’s disturbing (although, again, not all that surprising) is the role that supposed “journalistic ethics” played in spreading this Big Lie, by cluelessly giving these charlatans equal play with the established science on the issue.”
Amen.
The Septics are a boil that needs to be lanced, once and for all. [Thanks to W. Connelly for coining the term 'septic'].
The Septics' concept of 'Sound Science' has been shown to be a smoke screen, comprised entirely of a pack of lies.
Clearly, somebody took the decision to delete the section on the contrarians, because it reveals the lie that science never was the basis of contrarian views.
Since science was never formed the basis for the contrarian views, the genuine reason must surely have been something else. It's very hard to conclude that the 'something else' was anything but money.
I read the whole report. There is nothing nefarious in the whole thing. You might want to read it yourself before posting nonsense.
http://documents.nytimes.com/global-climate-coalition-aiam-climate-change-primer#p=1
[paul s quote]
I read the whole report.
[/paul s quote]
Shame you didn't understand it.
And you've read Andrew Revkin's retraction??
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
paul s dishonesty - A Correction is not a Retraction!
Especially, since the correction arose as a result of information received.
What has been reported was correct, the correction added further information.
By using the term 'retraction', you deliberately and falsely implied that the original article was incorrect, which is dishonest.
I agree.
online phd
top online schools
online degrees
the topic is indeed easy to understand. I am a [url=http://www.rent-car.net>rent a car delivery boy[/url] and i got it. But it can be complex if you look from more perspectives at it
http://www.rent-car.net
The failure of the media, failure of leadership, duplicity of business leaders is beyond bad. As we begin to see the extent of the problem, it is not just the 8 years of Bush/Cheyney, it is the 10 and 20 years prior. Many, many people will be dying from climate change, and their little business tactic is tragic to optimize profits from carbon fuel is sinful.
Revkin and the NYT had to print a retraction to the article.
Richard Steckis, Why can't you be honest?
Not a Retraction - it was a Correction.
Especially, since the correction arose as a result of information subsequently received.
What has been reported was correct, the correction added further information.
By using the term 'retraction', you deliberately and falsely implied that the original article was incorrect, which is dishonest.
download psp games
it is the 10 and 20 years prior.Online Degree Many, many people will be dying from climate change, and their little business tactic is tragic to optimize profits from carbon fuel is sinful.
As we begin to see the extent of the problem, it is not just the 8 years of Bush/Cheyney, it is the 10 and 20 years prior. Many, many people will be dying from climate change,Online social sciences degree and their little business tactic is tragic to optimize profits from carbon fuel is sinful.
They only hire scientists to prove their point, nothing more. And when facts don't match what they want to hear, they ignore them. What they should do is use the money they make on fossil fuels and invest into renewable companies rather than fighting the truth that global warming is real.
-----
free classified ads |jobs classifieds |articles
“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”
link building services | blog commenting service
Surely a little bit each and we are on the way. That's the philosophy of my Bluestone | sandstone pavers | Bluestone Pavers business.
“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”
link building services | blog commenting service
How is this even still something to be discussed, I mean really? How can one not believe that humans, who find all kinds of new and interesting ways to destroy their environment (like the trash island) believe that global warming is some sort of natural thing when there is no dispute to the fact we pump our atmosphere with compounds directly related to global warming?
Our nature is suffering so much and we are just fighting, doing nothing. One day everything will be lost and we will just see.
Wedding Dresses
Wedding Flowers
I agree with your point. Very Important issue you discussed. It is time to think about this matter seriously but not just talking and having conferences about it.
Abu Dhabi rental properties | Dubai Chat
It is time to think about this matter seriously but not just talking and having conferences about it. Very good article is discussed..
Auctions | Dating | Matrimony
How can one not believe that humans, who find all kinds of new and interesting ways to destroy their environment believe that global warming is some sort of natural thing when there is no dispute to the fact we pump our atmosphere with compounds directly related to global warming?
advertising |part time jobs|latex mattress
A simple design allows for easy recognition and allows the design to be versatile & memorable.
Affordable Associate Degree | MBA Degree | Life Experience Degree
no its not even anywhere near close to it http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/reply/3879/708706
do you think that your going to come over here cash gifting
“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”
Pop up Displays
“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’
electronic cigarette
Good review, but i don't think there is fundamental reason for crude oil to rally either, but because of exogenous forces in this market, it has rallied.