Lies, Damn Lies, and Climate Change Denial Cherry Picking

Via Climate Change Denial Crock of the Week:



This is what Lawrence Solomon, writing in the Financial Post, considers “analysis.”

Solomon wrote that on april 14th, the arctic “had more sea ice than it had on april 14, 1989″.  See the graph above for how this is done.

Exactly the same ploy was applied by denier Jack Schmidt, one of the Heartland Institute’s “experts” on climate science – see video below.

15 Comments on "Lies, Damn Lies, and Climate Change Denial Cherry Picking"

  1. BuzzCoastin | Apr 27, 2013 at 11:12 pm |

    the public debate on climate change is absurd
    disinfo at it’s finest, mental masturbation
    unless people are prepared to radically change their way of living
    which would pretty much scuttle the Amerikan Dream

    there is nothing that can be done by any one individual
    or even a motivated, highly intelligent group
    just ask the Altantians or the incalculable number of humans
    who met their end due to climate change

    • then nothing we shall due
      not as if Nero hue
      a tangent of a rainbow
      an object to one who is gold
      Ra we give light
      light we give ourselves

      call me out again
      Lucifer, Arc, Anakim
      Lilith, Ark, Anerican
      Anerican do it right
      Anerican do it wrong
      Anerican do it any way save no way ever at allng
      imagination’s fourth cycle
      just a mathematical trifle
      just a rusty swingset nostalgia
      just a small sacrifice to have nailed me

      tangents aren’t a roller coaster isn’t necessarily a nuF to be said

      • BuzzCoastin | Apr 28, 2013 at 12:54 am |

        dodging the dustbins.
        Look what I found! A lintil pea.
        And look at here! This cara weeseed.
        If I lose my breath for a minute or two don’t speak, remember!

        • hope and hate in conceit mate
          non-differentiable save as initial assumption
          try to hide a logic
          try to make a logic obvious
          merely morose monotony monotoning misfeasances
          mostly miraculous maybes as epiphanys
          agenda, extremism, just another shoelace in a shoe so near as to touch a conveyer belt

  2. bobbiethejean | Apr 28, 2013 at 12:48 am |

    I was wondering when someone would get around to posting something by Greenman. He summarily answers damn near every denier’s quandary from Climate-gate to the infamous Hockeystick graph. To any GCC deniers, I highly recommend watching all the videos on this guy’s channel. There is no way, if you are an intelligent human being, you will walk away with the opinion that GCC is not happening and not largely anthropogenic.

  3. Geoff Henry | Apr 28, 2013 at 2:50 am |

    Thank you for posting this info. It helps explain statistic abuses to Faux News parrots.

  4. I have never understood why the OBVIOUS, REAL-TIME, OBSERVABLE REALITY of climate change should be regarded with different degrees of seriousness based on its causes. The image of the biological nuclear family is so popular in the US and it seems so logical that this model would obviate holism for even and especially the most traditionally western minds. It’s like, “Oh. You and Mom and Dad and Aunt Milly are house family, within town family, within society family, within planet family, and we are inhabited by all these awesome, tiny organisms so WE must inhabit some kind of greater organism ourselves.” It’s certainly likely that Earth performs functions to preserve herself that can only happen when everybody gets off the train at the last depot.

    Further, why doesn’t it make the most sense to humans that if she knows we love her, then she’ll let us get back on or maybe even let us help her through the cycle?

  5. WTFMFWOMG | Apr 28, 2013 at 12:59 pm |

    The chart in the article only shows from 1980 to a few years past 2010, a nanosecond in geological time. This is insufficient proof of the alleged anthropogenic contribution to climate change. Humans have been adding carbon to the atmosphere since long before that. The 22 year (more or less) solar activity cycle could also be responsible for this change. One needs to look at to much longer trends. That said, I will agree that fossil fuels are dirty, contribute to climate change, etc., but, damnit, the whole thing is being used as a scam to collect billions in taxes:
    There is not a single proposal on this page that suggests allocating 100 percent of the billions of dollars in carbon taxes towards transitioning away from fossil fuels. The closest is the first one, which suggests only 25 percent, with the rest returned as a dividend. The rest of the proposals include a payroll tax rebate, deficit reduction, income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts or a “sampler platter.” The proposed carbon taxes represent a huge amount of money, hundreds of billions of dollars, but using all of it to actually solve the problem would result in the end of the use of fossil fuels, and the end of the tax revenue stream, so a new crisis would have to be invented in order to collect a new tax. We have the technology to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, so let’s apply it, future carbon taxes be damned.

Comments are closed.