Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. ...Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism ~ Excerpt from the Wikipedia page, "Climate change denial". (Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.)
Global climate change is regarded by most people as accepted science. According to a 12/11/2012 Huffington post article, "a recent analysis of papers appearing in peer-reviewed science journals shows 99.83 percent of the authors agreed that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions are a significant cause of global warming".
Could all of these scientists be wrong? YES! They are either wrong or, worse yet, flat out fabricating their "evidence". If you're with blogger Willis Hart on this, you may be asking, "they thought that they could get away with this?" NO! Mr. Hart is calling out the loathsome liars.
In his commentary Willis quotes Roy Spencer, an individual who is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville. According to SourceWatch (an online wiki operated by the Center for Media and Democracy, an American progressive organization)...
|There are several flaws in [Spencer's] methods - inconsistent initial conditions [and] failure to use the appropriate data... All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3°C, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) central estimate.|
Hmm, so I guess that, when the errors in this guy's findings are corrected, his research actually CONFIRMS the IPCC's findings of YES, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING.
Another scientist Willis cites is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Regarding this individual SourceWatch points out that...
| Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services.  His 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels.  A speech he wrote, titled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC.|
Sounds like a lot of conflict of interest to me. Further casting doubt on Lizden's impartiality is his claims regarding "how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking", and the fact that "he had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier". Really? Yeah, I don't know about you, but that totally blows this guy's credibility with me.
Nice try, Mr. Hart - with all the charts and graphs on your blog you might actually convince some that the consensus isn't overwhelming. But IT IS! I think I'll stick with the findings of the majority of scientists, scientific societies, and science academies and not the outliers you've hand picked.
|Why has it been so difficult to achieve meaningful solutions? Media pundits, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries raise doubts about the truth of global warming. These deniers downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, demand policies that allow industries to continue polluting, and attempt to undercut existing pollution standards. UCS fights misrepresentations of global warming, providing sound, science-based evidence to set the record straight.|
And yet the Hartster believes these misrepresenting deniers who downplay and distort, referring to them as "luminaries". Luminaries? Yeah, you heard that right, me-buck. BTW, WTF does "me-buck" mean? I have no idea. All I know is that Willis uses this phrase quite often.