The last few months have not exactly been kind to climate change deniers. In May, a U.S. television show with one of the fastest growing audiences around took aim at news programs that invite a climate change expert and a climate change denier to appear on air together, and call the ensuing discussion "a debate." The segment on John Oliver's Last Week Tonight comically skewered attempts by news outlets to present a "balanced" view of climate change.
But the issue is actually getting serious attention.
In July, the BBC announced it would significantly cut back the air time it gives to people who insist there is no man-made climate change. The move was particularly noteworthy because the BBC has a strict neutrality rule to ensure that its journalism avoids any accusation of bias. To that end, it even prevents employees from publicly disclosing their political views.
Related: Energy Efficiency Now a Booming High Tech Industry
For years, the scientific community has decried the attention that mainstream news outlets have given to climate change deniers. The BBC's decision was therefore hailed by scientists and public institutions, but the broadcaster's stance didn't meet with unanimous approval. Before the broadcaster's policy change, The Spectator had published a scathing editorial calling arguments in support of climate change that had aired on BBC programming "cherishably stupid, rude, fatuous, crabby, bigoted, ignorant, petulant, feeble, fallacious, dishonest and misleading."
Attacks like this have failed to make much of a dent, however; other major broadcasters are coming under pressure to follow the BBC's example.
Such an over-the-top defensive stance has become commonplace from a right-wing fringe that is clearly feeling increasingly outnumbered. And it's far easier to attack broadcasters than it is to take on private companies and their investment decisions.
In today's world, the likes of Google and Facebook have more sway over the public's news diet than any individual media outlets do. This is why people paid attention when Google Chairman Eric Schmidt went on NPR recently to explain that Google made a mistake by helping to fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and would stop doing so, because ALEC was "literally lying" with its position that man-made climate change is not happening. Schmidt went on to say, "The facts of climate change are not in question any more… Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place."
In the days since his interview aired, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft and Yelp have also pulled their support for ALEC. Since the organization is also funded by the likes of ExxonMobil, it is uncertain how much these announcements will hurt its bottom line, but the group is already experiencing a PR disaster.
Another huge blow was delivered to deniers last week when the Rockefeller Brothers Fund - the heirs of Standard Oil co-founder John D. Rockefeller -- announced it would be divesting its portfolio of all investments in fossil fuels and reinvesting the money in clean energy projects.
Related: New Study Says U.S. Underestimated Keystone XL Emissions
The spin machine was quick to downplay the importance of the move, pointing out that the fund was small fry, only accounting for $860 million in investments, as opposed to the $4.65 trillion fossil fuel sector worldwide. But much like Google and Facebook stopping their funding for ALEC, this is about far more than just money. Virtually every major news outlet covered the Rockefeller Brothers Fund decision. The matter was even discussed on the sidelines of the Green Expo in Mexico City. This is because of the resonance the Rockefeller name carries in the finance and oil sectors, as well as among the general population. It is doubtful any fund with a less distinct name making the same decision would have got anywhere near the same coverage.
All this happened the same week as the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which has seen governments pour billions into a fund that was virtually empty a few weeks ago.
Climate change deniers -- whether the Koch Brothers, or big oil companies, or the conservative and influential American Enterprise Institute -- have spent heavily on lobbying efforts in the U.S. Congress to convince lawmakers not to vote for new legislation addressing climate change. Their campaign has succeeded equally at halting real action and further damaging the Earth's environment.
But when the BBC, the Rockefellers, Google and world governments are among the forces arrayed against you, it might be time to reexamine your position.
By Chris Dalby of Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
Comments
..."when the BBC, the Rockefellers, Google and world governments are among the forces arrayed against you..." is when I know I'm doing something right.
http://ricochet.com/13-ridiculous-predictions-made-earth-day-1970/
Have we become a world of science by majority rule rather than science by scientific method ?
Just because we do have climate change does not mean it is human caused. The science does not show it to be human caused.
There is gonna be a lot of egg on a lot of faces when this global warming fraud is exposed for the hoax that it is.
At least, now we know who doesn't have credibility.
Anyone who predicts distant future states for a NS system is a fraud or incompetent, or both. Oh, and the sun is in part a Navier Stokes system, but has additional factors such as nuclear fission reation rates that vary in response to changes temperature and density. That amplifies the nonlinearity.
By the way, the sun is much much bigger than the earth.
Looking to the Antarctic and observing that at 20.07 million square kilometers the ice extent is the highest satellite measured record ever, it’s quite apparent that the “truth” about AGW is becoming readily discernible for even the most committed Global Warming Acolyte
Considering that raw GISS data as well as data from the SABER system and NASA’s Argo system all seem to indicate that there has been no warming for more than a decade, while at the same time, the sensors on Mauna Loa have been indicating a steady rise in atmospheric CO2 levels [though I would point out we’re talking parts per “million” here] it would seem to me, even without additional commentary by credentialed AGW skeptics like Dr. John Christy or Dr. Judith Curry that it’s quite evident the CAGW hypothesis is a theory in trouble as the real world data doesn’t seem to support its predictions.
What?? And call a vast hoax the truth??? For me not 'reexamine" but to reintensify my exposure of this vast hoax!!
When these are the parties against me it is the only time I DON'T have to examine my position.
Last time world governments and the Rockefellers were teaming up to fund science it was Eugenics.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
There has never been a serious scientific debate on the issue, because promoters are ignorant politicians or paid-off science mouthpieces for the movement. They've never addressed the issues of the biggest greenhouse gas (water vapor) and what to do about it, the gargantuan carbon sink (the oceans) which act as a buffer, or the studies that show an increase in biomass viability with increasing CO2 (were that even a valid argument). Let's have a debate! No, we can't because it's not really about global warming, it's about wealth redistribution!!
With all due respect, as long as the sun and volcanoes affect the earth's climate - as we can agree they always have heavily - I could care less if opponents of man-made climate change are "having a bad year." What does that mean? That major media outlets and most one-world governments are experiencing massive groupthink in the 21st century? That's the way it's been for over a decade. Don't forget that it was not long ago that progressives (i.e. liberals who don't like that truer title) touted "global warming" until that term failed after 10+ years of global cooling so now they call it climate change. It's the same story, repackage the same idea in different wrapping and see if people buy in. Now look, of course there is climate change, every hour of every day, that is the way the earth works, but to say that more reporting in support of man-made climate change enhances its veracity is like saying more reporting in support of fast food being healthy makes it healthy. While humans may affect slightly the climate of earth, it is proven that, on the basis of carbon emission at least, that volcanoes, in one simple eruption, can generate the whole of man's history of carbon output. Do you disagree? What's true is true. Even so, at one point in earth's history, it is shown that there was far more carbon than today, and life thrived then. Too many on the left are eager to squash alternative points of view in favor of junk science. Eventually, they will rewrite history, but until then, those with wisdom will debate what a few in power want to propogate. Thank you. And, for the record, we know the Rockefellers are doing what they are, because they believe they can make more money off the governments who subsidize non-fossil fuels with taxpayer money, while destoroying the necessary fossil fuel industry. They're probably right.
You gotta be kidding. Just because the world promotes a hoax does not mean I have to.
Giordano Bruno said it best when he wrote:
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one
to wish to think with the masses or majority,
merely because the majority is the majority.
Truth does not change because it is, or is not,
believed by a majority of the people."
-- Giordano Bruno
(1548-1699)
Source: On Shadows of Ideas
Giordano.Bruno.Quote
Wisdom suggests that you realize this and no whore yourself out to the clap trap and greatest hoax of the 21st century.
Are we kidding ourselves as a species or what?
Denying anthropocentric, (Co-2-poisoning-caused), climate change is a lot like going down to NYC's docks where the U.S.S. Intrepid war-memorial / museum is located, with a sign...
Advertising 'front-row-seat' tickets to welcome R.M.S. Titanic's arrival...
I remember what winter-snow was like when I was a child, roughly 50+ years, past...
A scant 50+years...!
And I can see what winter snow patterns are like today! Not even in the same ballpark!
To plagiarize the (fictional) 'Terminator-2-Waitress', ('Sarah Conner'),more or less in context, (about a disaster every bit as serious as a Nuclear war...):
"...I'm NOT stupid, you know!"
Secondly, why can't the growth/transition to renewables be seen as pragmatic instead of political. Your light bulbs don't care where the energy comes from, all the better it be from cleaner sustainable sources. Does it truly insult you that much a large percentage of the population wants a change? Last time I checked Eric Schmidt has achieved far more than anyone in the comment section has, and he has no apparent conflict of interest. Ok, I'm done.
The real opposition you find is by people who tend to disagree with the anthropogenic atribution (that is, what fraction of the ongoing warming is caused by humanity and what portion is the result of a natural process).
I think you´ll find people like me are having an excellent year. The data shows the attribution used by the IPCC is wrong. We also see that climate models haven´t been able to predict the surface temperature over the last 10 years (this means their dire predictions may be way off the mark). There´s also the good news about the Antarctic sea ice growing to a new record this winter.
I´m starting to feel the problem posed by global warming hype is finally being resolved. Now we just have to focus on solving global warming itself.
Oh, I about spit my coffee all over my keyboard when I read this. I remember watching BBC America back in 2006 when the Dem's took the House and Senate. The blond haired female BBC News talking head - she's still on I think - couldn't suppress her absolute glee. I swear she looked like she had a hard time keeping from urinating on the set, so happy was she.
The BBC functions as the Vatican of the Church of Global Warming. To say it's strictly neutral is like saying that Pravda was strictly neutral back in the days of the USSR.
Thinking people have taken a look at the facts, and concluded the whole thing is a scam. The only purpose behind the "climate change" hysteria, is to set up another fake crisis that requires "urgent need for more government control".
The whole this is already old and busted. The author of this story has an agenda, and its not to "report the truth".
For a modest amount (like $1 million, as a starter), would be glad to build you a climate model to show whatever you would like. As an example, if you want 40 degress C at noon on July 1, 2050 in D.C. that would be easy.
One possibility is that people who read oilprice.com are much more interested in the idea of strong human influence on climate than they are in anything else oilprice.com covers in its articles, topics such as world coal production and consumption; production and consumption of iron ore; global trade in alumina, or potash, or rare-earth elements; global supply and trade of petroleum; prospects for expansion or or decrease in use of nuclear power; and many more. Is reading such articles just something to be got through until something on the main interest comes up? Possible, I suppose; doesn't seem likely, though, to me.
Another possibility is that those 16 comments are similar to the targeted flood of comments or emails that has been seen repeatedly directed against articles that take a favorable view of human-influenced climate change. Such floods often contain writing that is confused, or ill-informed, and messages that are designed to mislead; and the writing is often at a pretty low level and frequently abusive.
Who can deny the climate is changing? It has changed in the past and it will certainly change again. No one can deny that, but what they mean by climate change is different. They mean Global Warming! There has been some warming and some cooling over the past century.
As has been pointed out by many others, the causes for the change is very difficult to pin down. Blaming it on man just does not have the science behind it to make a strong case for it.
This issue shows that science is not so cut and dried. Bias does effect how scientists interpret the data. Sometimes it also leads to publishing false data or trying to hide unsupportive data. In this type of instance, suppression of all opposing views is downright scary!
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/05/02/videotranscript-the-oreilly-factor-features-climate-depot-on-gores-path-to-become-the-first-carbon-billionaire/
Or how about? http://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/01/23/maurice-strongs-global-warming-scheme-hits-the-sphinx-of-egypt-yes-global-warming-is-just-another-banking-fraud/
There's fraud going on, but your buddy Al and his handlers are the ones committing it.
That is an EXTRAORDINARY claim, unsupported by any studies that I am aware of. The current planetary energy imbalance of ~0.5 watts per square meter isn't in dispute, and it is a predicted result of mankind's greenhouse emissions.
Lots of willful ignorance in response to the article, and some silly comments by people who know better but are pandering to the audience h
The arguments are the same ones seen on every site. The attacks are the same, and I suspect the people doing the attacking are the same.
31,000 scientists?? signing a petition??
Antarctic Ice Sheets larger?
No warming for last 18 years?
It's snowing in Chicago.
Next we will get the claims of volcanic activity in Greenland is causing the icecap to melt and not the changes in temperature.
All the arguments are straw men, easily disproved and easily explained - just a quick search will give you answers.
It is obvious what is going on here.
What we need is a discussion of what should be done, not an argument about the motivation of Al Gore or others.