Going all Meta on Mike

Climate change deniers depend on attacking evidence of human forced global warming and associated climate change in isolation, it’s such a complex issue that there is plenty of room to drive wedges and create “doubt” that has been for years and continues to be used to prevent any meaningful action on a growing crisis that has already killed, injured, made homeless or unemployed millions of people worldwide.
Because global warming denial depends on finding the vulnerable points to attack, it becomes important to not deal with it in isolation but to present the pattern of attack itself. Then it become more than apparent that what’s being done has nothing to do with effectively communicating essential information and has everything to do with the prevention of essential action in the interests of us all.
So let’s examine the pattern of denial of the climate change contrarian here;
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18065/
At the very start of the discussion of climate change models:
Mike posts-

What Dana is talking about is that all the models are showing the earth is warming. But when you look at the charts, the charts show the models disagree by 1.75. And when you are trying to keep warming under 2. That not a good enough system. Once you get the NASA, NOAA and UK Hadley Centre agreeing, then you got something.
Kind of nebulous, but the intent here isn't to provide meaningful information, it's to distort, confuse and eventually neutralize it to the greatest degree possible in the interests of one narrow commercial sector of our society.
What we have is the public, media, political, scientists and none-scientists all with a points of views. Who I am backing is the scientists. The ones working on the computer models. The political groups has gotten the public groups all worked up so they can start taxing them. The none-scientists and media are writing stories and trying to get a piece of the money pie. Meanwhile the scientists are working with the models and building the data gathering systems. I’m backing the scientists all the way. Where we disagree is. Absolute perfection, I don’t see that. Destructive to our way of life. I do see that happening a little bit. Our way of life changes from generation to generation in the industrialized nations now. Remember, the super volcano is much more dangerous to mankind’s existence and way of life than climate change. What are we doing to monitor the super volcanoes that we know of? How come we aren’t setting up computer models and taxing people for funding to build systems to handle the volcanoes? I bet if Al Gore and the carbon credit group could have figured out a way to make money on the volcanoes, we would be talking volcano instead of climate. We do know that mankind has survived the 20 climate changes. But the one super volcano in mankind’s existence just about wiped us out. One DNA result showed only 500 people left on earth. The best we can do, will be done by the proper use of knowledge.
He's on the side of scientists, but then he contradicts that by dismissing the evidence that has the highest degree of confidence and throws out a red herring that we should be really afraid of. "Don't worry about carbon dioxide forcing catastrophic climate change everybody, those super volcanoes are much more frightening. Then goes onto comparing monitoring human forced climate change with monitoring super volcanoes, if we're not going to pay attention to something much worse than climate change then what's the big deal with burning billions of tons of fossil fuels a year is the idea he's putting across. Remember that one of the founders of the modern contrarian movement former credible scientist Fred Seitz did exactly the same thing for the tobacco industry. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/manufactured-ignorance
Frederick Seitz, for example, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and ex officio member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, in 1979 was hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, makers of Camel cigarettes, to head their Medical Research Committee. A solid-state physicist with Manhattan Project credentials, Seitz was assigned the task of handing out $45 million in research grants to buttress the prestige of tobacco—grants that, as he would later admit, steered clear of anything that might impugn tobacco. “They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking," he said in a 2006 interview. Seitz was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over the six years during which he served in this capacity. It was not long thereafter that he and a crew of Cold Warrior colleagues also began denying the reality of human-caused climate change.
He directed $45 million dollars from the tobacco lobby to do studies on the effects of anything but cancer while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lying for living has never paid better, the fossil fuel sector has far more money to spend on this than the tobacco lobby ever did. Mike again;
Citizen, sorry for not getting back right away. I need another day. Went to the U-tube to watch the video and spent 3 hours there. Mostly with the guy Pothole54 that you put in your post. What a great guy and the skills of communication are the greatest. Thank you, Mike
Then he gets folksy like he really is just one of us...until it's time to get back to the denial side of things. Where it shifts to appeal to authority over evidence and what a physicist is telling us where we should be in the glacial/inter-glacial cycles. To be clear, they're all different as the Milankovitch Cycles involve a complex interplay of three mechanisms. Orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and precession, so nobody knows exactly where we are in regards to this cycle...except for global warming deniers who apparently have access to higher levels of enlightenment when it comes to shutting down crucial discussion.
Ok, where does the physics tell us where is the earth located at in the natural climate cycle? My understanding is that Ruddiman is saying that we should be in an Ice Age now. It is understood and not contested that the cycle takes 90,000 years to warm the earth, but only 10,000 years for the cooling process. Forget for right now the global warming and climate change and agree where the earth is located in the natural cycle. Then add the global warming and climate change. Are we headed to the peak of the warming cycle? At the peak of the warming cycle? Over the peak of the warming cycle and are now in the cooling cycle? Ruddiman is saying that we are over the peak and should be in the normal Ice Age if it wasn’t for the global warming affect.
In the end it's all bullshit, "people" like this aren't here to discuss anything in good faith, if this poster was he wouldn't be presenting utter garbage such as ice core records that indicate levels of CO2 300 times current rates, not just once but several times even when corrected with the actual levels which never went above 290 ppm of CO2. This is just a start, I think if somebody is willing to screw with all our lives and futures this way, then it's up to us to shine a bright light on their activities. Please feel free to add to this as this campaign of denial continues here and many other places.

So what’s the pattern of denial being used here;

  1. There are other things to be much more afraid of than human forced climate change due to the massive emissions of carbon dioxide over the last century alone.
    Like
  • Super volcanoes
  • Too little CO2 for life to exist on Earth, Mike claims that occurs at 150 ppm with no evidence or how we’d ever get there with current conditions and levels of natural emissions of CO2 from tectonic activity.
  • An ice age that according to him we’d be in right now if not for massive emissions of CO2.
  1. There are some really good benefits to having a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Like
  • Greater plant growth
  • We won’t freeze in the ice age that we’re all told to assume would be taking place right now if not for Standard oil, ExxonMobil, the Kochs, Dutch Shell, OPEC and more. Who knew they were such heroes.
  1. He does it with appeal to authority with no supporting evidence.
    Like
“The world needs ultimately to completely decarbonize," says John Holdren
This poster can't even be honest about something this basic, what is the position of a prominent expert on the issue. Something else that John Holdren says on the issue which is consistently echoed here by those who've taken the time to learn the facts despite the industry funded and fueled disinformation campaign.
It is absolutely essential, if we want to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate change, that we turn this problem around starting now. John Holdren
John Holdren isn't saying we need to wait until it's too late as Mike is claiming, he's saying the opposite.

Well done. I don’t have any time to add anything just now.
But, I thought this would be a good place to repeat my previous invitation to Mike
Present any Holdren statements, actual quotes that is including sources,
show us where you thinking he says we should wait to take action.

He’s going to tell you to stick to the point, which means addressing the questions he asks, not presenting facts and stuff. Also, it’s not his job to do research for you. He has a bunch of papers in a barn somewhere. When he gets those organized, he’ll have all the answers.

He's going to tell you to stick to the point, which means addressing the questions he asks, not presenting facts and stuff. Also, it's not his job to do research for you. He has a bunch of papers in a barn somewhere. When he gets those organized, he'll have all the answers.
This is being done out of incredibly well funded "think" tanks like the Marshall, Heartland and Cato. With the money coming from ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers and anyone else who wants to maintain "business as usual". It's now being done by effectively laundering the money the way drug cartels and tax dodgers do. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon. The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement. It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In a fundamental sense climate change denial is organized crime.

This could make a good thread for collecting examples of their game.

I think you found out that no one want to get into you bashing Holdren. John points out that we need to find a level of CO2 that is realistic and maybe a level higher than what we have today could be good for food production and livable for humans. And to me, that sounds about right.
We don't want to hear what you think John Holdren said - that's worthless heresy Share his actual quotes along with the citations so we can read what HE said!
Good example of contrarian conjuring. A number of times our poster tells us John Holdren says such and such. I've been asking him to produce the actual quotes and citations so that I can go back and read John Holdren's actual words. Rather than providing that simple information He has decided to color me a John Holdren "basher". Then he repeats his twisted version of what he thinks John Holdren said - and calls it a victory.

Most climate change deniers, I have found, are capitalist types who don’t want governments to be able to “interfere” with their capitalist exploits. They know that governments have the power to restrict their plans to make a killing in the marketplace, so their first line of attack is to deny that climate change is man-made, which means, of course, that nothing that governments do can alter climate change. They often agree that climate dhange is occurring, but they insist it is “natural” and nothing can be done to change its progress, therefore none of their business exploits or prospectove business exploits can possibly have any negative effect on it.
When controversies like this come up, where it is incomprehensible to understand the denial in the face of known facts, yet a substantial part of the population denies it, we should “Follow the money.” The answer will always be there.
I have discussed this with quite a few climate deniers. Every one of them is a “business” type, a capitalist and political reactionary who thinks the governmemt is hellbent on slowing the march if capitalism, which they see as being the only salvation of economies in every corner of the world. In their opinion, untrammeled capitalism is the only way to employ people and keep them working and to make an economy healthy. They are also in mortal fear of anything that smacks of socialism or socialistic policies, including unions, minimum wage, benefits to workers and anything designed to lessen climate change–in short, anything that would subtract from their bottom line. The next time anyone has the opporunity to talk to a climate denier, find out where they stand politically. I guarantee you will find what I have found. Scratch a climate denier and you will find a political conservative who believes above everything else that capitalism is society’s only hope, and it should never be “interfered” with.
Lois

This could make a good thread for collecting examples of their game.
I think you found out that no one want to get into you bashing Holdren. John points out that we need to find a level of CO2 that is realistic and maybe a level higher than what we have today could be good for food production and livable for humans. And to me, that sounds about right.
We don't want to hear what you think John Holdren said - that's worthless heresy Share his actual quotes along with the citations so we can read what HE said!
Good example of contrarian conjuring. A number of times our poster tells us John Holdren says such and such. I've been asking him to produce the actual quotes and citations so that I can go back and read John Holdren's actual words. Rather than providing that simple information He has decided to color me a John Holdren "basher". Then he repeats his twisted version of what he thinks John Holdren said - and calls it a victory.
I know, it's ridiculous. Realistic levels of CO2 determined by corporations that sell fossil fuels are going to be unlimited. They ignore the science because it interferes with their bottom line, even if that means eventually the impacts are catastrophic. It's exactly the same attitude that the tobacco lobby had and their concept of "replacement" smokers. We don't have a replacement Earth but you wouldn't know that if you listened at all to the climate change denial campaign funded almost entirely by the fossil fuel and tobacco sector. People like John Holdren do get the science and the fundamental risk in what's being done which is why he's calling for an eventual phasing out of all fossil fuels and making immediate changes to avoid much greater catastrophe. I wouldn't take anything a denier says seriously or personally, their only agenda is to neutralize any effective communication of the actual risks we're all facing. There's nothing human about what's being done by the climate change denial campaign, just as there was no real humanity behind the tobacco lobby campaign to keep hooking new smokers as many older ones died from using their products. In the end it's mass murder for a living, I have absolutely no respect for serial killers...
Most climate change deniers, I have found, are capitalist types who don't want governments to be able to "interfere" with their capitalist exploits. They know that governments have the power to restrict their plans to make a killing in the marketplace, so their first line of attack is to deny that climate change is man-made, which means, of course, that nothing that governments do can alter climate change. They often agree that climate dhange is occurring, but they insist it is "natural" and nothing can be done to change its progress, therefore none of their business exploits or prospectove business exploits can possibly have any negative effect on it. When controversies like this come up, where it is incomprehensible to understand the denial in the face of known facts, yet a substantial part of the population denies it, we should "Follow the money." The answer will always be there. I have discussed this with quite a few climate deniers. Every one of them is a "business" type, a capitalist and political reactionary who thinks the governmemt is hellbent on slowing the march if capitalism, which they see as being the only salvation of economies in every corner of the world. In their opinion, untrammeled capitalism is the only way to employ people and keep them working and to make an economy healthy. They are also in mortal fear of anything that smacks of socialism or socialistic policies, including unions, minimum wage, benefits to workers and anything designed to leasen climate change--in short, anything that would subtract from their bottom line. The next time anyone has the opporunity to talk to a climate denier, find out where they stand politically. I guarantee you will find what I have found. Scratch a climate denier and you will find a political conservative who believes above everything else that capitalism is society's only hope, and it should never be "interfered" with. Lois
What she said... The older I get the more I see just how sociopathic unregulated "capitalism" is. Which shouldn't be surprising, people who see everything in terms of some abstract value system probably aren't going to even understand that real lives are involved and being destroyed constantly by their actions.

Lois’ comments were good regarding motivation and you nailed the agenda

, their only agenda is to neutralize any effective communication of the actual risks we're all facing. There's nothing human about what's being done by the climate change denial campaign, just as there was no real humanity behind the tobacco lobby campaign to keep hooking new smokers as many older ones died from using their products. In the end it's mass murder for a living, I have absolutely no respect for serial killers...
Agreed

Excellent points everyone, especially Lois. Mike has consistently contradicted himself and even misrepresented reality in his bid to do nothing about climate change. I would have said “lied” instead of “misrepresented” but lying implies deceitful intent, and it is quite possible Mike believes the propaganda his spreads. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by cognitive dissonance.

Moved comment to another thread trying to get Mike’s attention.

Mike Yohe is now contending that there were times in the Earth’s past where CO2 levels were 350 times what they are now, and to “prove” it linked to a biomed journal with no article even listed on the page.
It’s already been pointed out repeatedly that there is no evidence for CO2 levels to have ever been that high, there isn’t even any direct evidence that CO2 levels during the Snowball Earth period reached 50 times present levels, just hypotheses that it occurred because there needs to be a mechanism to remove the massive ice sheets that covered the planet and the fact that tectonic activity didn’t cease.
People engaging is honest discussion don’t repeat false information when it’s been clearly pointed out to be just that. People engaging in a cynical and selfish disinformation campaign designed to temporarily enrich the few at the cost of the many would have no problem at all repeating what are in fact lies.