onsdag 24. mai 2017

Klimafornekter-løgnene debunket - og de beste beviser for at mennesker bidrar til klimaendringer DEL 4

INNHOLD DEL 4 - HVORDAN ALT ER VEVD SAMMEN

18. Klimafornekting i en konspirasjonskultur
19. Klimafornektingens røtter
20. Klimafornekting fra fossil brensel-industrien og hvordan den kopierer tobakksindustriens metoder
21. Sponsorene - den enorme pengestøtten bak klimaløgnene og taktikkene som brukes for å spre dem
22. Krigen mot vitenskapen
23. Kreasjonistene
24. Klima-kreasjonistene
25. Oppsummering
26. Avslutning
27. Bonus.
28. Faktaverktøy / Linker

18. KLIMAFORNEKTING I EN KONSPIRASJONSKULTUR 


Som vi skal se senere, er det en stor og pengesterk industri der ute som prøver å snu alt på hodet og attpåtil få støtte i befolkningen for dette. Det er et eldgammelt triks; å beskylde motstanderen for å bedrive med det en driver med selv, for å kamuflere sin egen agenda. Det er derfor klimatåkeleggerne beskylder klimaforskere for å være de korrupte.

Vi skal se på hvem som sitter på pengemidlene senere i dette dokumentet. Her er en smakebit; 

1.Hva Exxon måtte ut med etter Exxon Valdez-ulykken? “As of December 15, 2009, Exxon paid all owed $507.5 million punitive damages, including lawsuit costs, plus interest, which were further distributed to thousands of plaintiffs.“

2.Oppgjøret til BP etter Deepwater Horizon-katastrofen i Mexicogulfen i 2010?: In September 2014, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill because of its gross negligence and reckless conduct. In July 2015, BP agreed to pay $18.7 billion in fines, the largest corporate settlement in U.S. history.

3. David H. Koch og Charles G. Koch, de to brødrene som fortsatt er med i Koch Industries, er tilknyttet Koch family foundations og er kjent for deres finansielle støtte til konservative og libertarianske politiske grupper i USA. Du finner alltid Koch-brødrene på listene over verdens rikeste mennesker. Siden 1980-tallet har Koch foundations gitt mer enn USD 100 millioner til organisasjoner og tenketanker som Heritage Foundation og Cato Institute, samt i den seneste tid Americans for Prosperity. Årlig omsetning for Koch Industries har blitt estimert til å være hundre milliarder USD. [...] the Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. Climate change skeptic Willie Soon received $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Organizations that the Koch brothers help fund, such as Americans for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Manhattan Institute, have been active in questioning global warming. Americans for Prosperity and the Koch brothers influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vot against climate change legislation that does not include offsetting tax cuts.

EGEN BLOGGPOST

19. KLIMAFORNEKTINGENS RØTTER 


“It’s not just by chance that climate change denial is particularly widespread in countries that have an entrenched fossil fuel industry.” In addition to directly funding politicians, the industry also spends heavily on supporting scientific research that spreads climate disinformation.



Når jeg diskuterer med amerikanske klimaskeptikere dukker (dessverre) alltid Al Gores film opp tidlig. Filmen er for de konservative et kaldt gufs av en påminnelse om den urettferdige Kyoto-avtalen; At selskaper i USA skulle ta støyten for verdens klimautslipp gjennom avgifter og reguleringer som ville svekket deres konkurransevilkår og tapt arbeidsplasser, mens “verstinglandene” slipper unna. For dem blir det å akseptere AGW det samme som å akseptere disse reguleringene og skattene. Som altså blir sett på som sosialisme (et fyord for mange i USA). Gores film "bekrefter" at AGW er en leftist hoax. I diskusjonene på nett tar det ikke lang tid før du får slengt etter deg bilder av Karl Marx og kommentarer som:

"Haha! "School science"! As in the dumbed down education system the leftists created so that people will be stupid enough to vote for them. Moron"

Hvorfor disse folkene også er så kritisk til Fns Klimapanel og den nye Paris-avtalen? Disse blir sett på som “ venstreskrudd statlig sosialisme” tredd ned over hodet på en livsstil. Som kun er ute etter å “skade” amerikansk industri. 

AGW-fornekting er altså en del av "pakken" hos de kristenkonservative og i det politisk konservative USA. Der borte er klimaspørsmål veldig polarisert. Det er ideologi. Det er stammetenkning. Og når klimafornekting er blitt "en del av pakken” spiller det liten eller ingen rolle hva vitenskapen sier. Konservative-høyrekrefter som representerer den enorme olje og kullindustrien har - gjennom et utall tankesmier - lenge pushet ideen om at AGW er upatriotisk, sosialistisk og en "leftist" hoax. En betydelig del av befolkningen har slukt denne fantasihistorien.

Selv NASA, som normalt er veldig pålitelige og hendige som patriot-referanse når det gjelder å putte folk på månen og sånt, blir av disse kreftene nå sett på som korrupte svikere fordi deres observasjoner støtter AGW. Fundamentale kristne og kreasjonister, som det er en del av i USA, fornekter AGW rett og slett fordi “bare gud kan forandre klimaet”. Det viser seg at hvor enn det er klimafornekting, er kreasjonistene aldri langt unna. Mer om dette senere. 
 

LES OM KLIMAFORNEKTINGENS RØTTER HER:
Mont Pelerin Society Revealed As Home To Leading Pushers Of Climate Science Denial 

Duke University history professor Nancy MacLean suggests some answers in her new book Democracy in Chains: the Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.

The book documents how wealthy conservatives, in particular petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch, teamed up with neoliberal academics with the objective, MacLean says, of undermining the functions of government in the United States.

MacLean’s central character is the late James McGill Buchanan, a political theorist and economist who won a Nobel award in 1986 for his development of “public choice theory”.

Buchanan and Koch developed and propagated their ideas through a private organisation called the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) – an influential group known as the “neoliberal thought collective” that was established in 1947 by famed free market economist Friedrich Hayek. Buchanan was a former president and joined in 1957. Koch, who has poured millions into groups attacking mainstream climate science, joined MPS in 1970.

MPS has about 500 members in more than 40 countries.

In the US it has many members who also work at think tanks that push climate science misinformation and attack renewable energy.

I et kvart århundre har det vært en organisert klimatåkeleggings-maskin i USA som arbeider for å så tvil om menneskeskapt oppvarming og forsinke tiltak mot utslipp av klimagasser. Hvis motstanden mot klimaendringer bare var et spørsmål om å beskytte økonomiske interesser, er det nesten sikkert at vi ikke ville vært der vi er i dag. Fornektelse, i USA, har blitt (forkledd som) ideologi. Og når en har gjort klima til ideologi og politisk agenda, er det kort vei til å kalle myndighetenes reguleringer på fossilt brensel for sosialisme, og et hinder for økonomisk utvikling.” (Du har vel ikke glemt John Birch Society? Joda, de finnes ennå.) “Dette går tilbake til slutten av 80-årene, da det ble ganske klart at det ikke lenger var noen vedvarende sovjetisk trussel. De konservative trengte en ny busemann, og den fant de i miljøbevegelsen."Green is the new Red", ble et felles uttrykk i konservative magasiner fra den tiden. Snarere enn å foreslå at USA fjernet beskyttelse utformet for å holde luften og vannet rent, raste de mot kontroller og restriksjoner på mindre synlige trusler, som plantevernmidler, ozonhull og global oppvarming.“ Og visst er det ironisk, det er markedsløsninger som karbonskatter eller klimakvoter, som stimulerer næringer som ikke forurenser så mye. Dette er en type løsninger som konservative har en tendens til å like, men implementering av enhver løsning betyr å erkjenne problemet i utgangspunktet.
 
"Å akseptere at klimaendringene er reelle og ikke bra for oss er fundamentalt vanskeligere å gjøre for dem som har investert i eller dratt nytte av fossil-industrikapitalismen, som går på billig fossilt brensel. Klimaendringer er en bivirkning av dette; Industrialiserte land ble bygget med energi fra billige fossile brensler,og dette frigir enorme mengder klimagasser til atmosfæren. Dette er hva økonomene kaller en eksternalitet - en konsekvens som ikke er bygget inn i prisen. Selvfølgelig vil industrien motstå reguleringer som gjør driften dyrere. Fossile brensel-selskaper har ledet an i klimafornektelsen og finansiert arbeidet med å diskreditere vitenskapen, vel vitende om de faktiske forhold om utslipp og global oppvarming."

The leading theory to explain why climate change denial exists at all is called the anti-reflexivity thesis. That’s just fancy words to describe how defenders of industrial capitalism have risen up to protect that system from those who would change it, in light of its environmental and social costs

"It’s not surprising that high-profile deniers are almost exclusively conservative white men, since they have most benefited from the industrial capitalist system, and therefore have the most skin in the game when it comes to protecting the powers that be — even if they aren’t those powers."[...] “conservative white males are likely to favour protection of the current industrial capitalist order which has historically served them well”. It added that “heightened emotional and psychic investment in defending in-group claims may translate into misperceived understanding about problems like climate change that threaten the continued order of the system.”

Les mer om dette i studien  
Cool dudes:The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States

"Facing up to climate change also means confronting the uncomfortable reality that the growth-based economic and political models on which we depend may be built on sand. In some, especially the “winners” in the current economic system, this realisation can trigger an angry backlash."

These same ageing contrarians doubtless insure their homes, put on their seatbelts, check smoke alarms and fret about cholesterol levels.

Why then, when it comes to assessing the greatest threat the world has ever faced and when presented with the most overwhelming scientific consensus on any issue in the modern era, does this caution desert them? Are they prepared quite literally to bet their children’s lives on the faux optimism being peddled by contrarians?

Why do male climate change ‘sceptics’ have such a problem with women? 
Historical accounts suggest that when global warming became a major issue in the late 1980s, fossil fuel producers and ideologically allied think tanks worked preemptively to influence climate policy and opinion by sowing doubt over the science (Jacques et al., 2008; McCright & Dunlap, 2000, 2003). These interests worked mostly through the Republican Party (McCright & Dunlap, 2010); this was likely because big business had long been part of the Republican coalition (Martin & Swank, 2008). Due to their efforts, the information environment generally traversed by the Republican rank and file became rife with climate change denialism (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013; Elsasser & Dunlap, 2012; Jacques et al., 2008; Sharman, 2014).
Podcast for de som vil høre mer om klimafornektingens røtter og virksomheter

Elite sources also connected their audience’s underlying ideologies to climate change: Because cutting GHG emissions requires intervention regulation or increased taxation of carbon emissions—that curtail free market economics, people whose identity and worldview centers around free markets became particularly likely to reject the findings from climate science when the logic was laid bare (Lewandowsky, Gignac, et al.2013b).

But climate change skeptics are not “blank slates” who can be swayed to accept the facts of climate change with more education or different religious leanings, said Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist from Texas Tech University, in a plenary address on Feb. 15 at the 2018 AAAS Annual Meeting.Instead, political conservatism is the biggest predictor of whether a person will be a climate change skeptic, she said citing studies, and distrust of the government “telling them what to do” often underlies their skepticism.

- Becky Ham, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Feb 18, 2018
Konservative kristne, konservative politikere, The Wise use movement og fossil-brensel-industrien i USA har og lett etter noe konkret å rette raseriet mot i sin kamp mot den nye fienden; «klimahysteriet». Angrepene på FNs klimapanel, finansiert av The Heartland Institute, viser tydelig at klimapanelet er personifisert som denne nye busemannen. Et klimapanel som vil “legge urettferdige statlige restriksjoner og begrensninger på alt og alle” pga denne “innbilte klimakrisen”. Dermed kan en i tillegg kalle klimafornekting for antikommunistisk arbeid - og da er alle virkemidler tillatt. Amerikanske kreasjonister pusher dette fiendebildet skamløst:



Vi skal straks se på hvordan de konservative kristne og kreasjonistene (the fringe-freaks) er på lag med oljeindustrien. La oss se på noen av årsakene til at de "vanlige" troende ikke støtter teorien om AGW:

1. Evangelicals have struck an alliance with Republicans that is so strong that their beliefs are arguably more rooted in conservative politics than in anything in the Bible.

2. Since at least the postwar period, evangelicals have been in bed with big business. Big business has traditionally opposed efforts to cut carbon admissions, pouring money into discrediting the science behind climate change.

3. Many environmental activists use rhetoric that likens our planet to a mother, and imagery that draws on native religions that worshiped the earth. Many evangelicals will de facto oppose anything they believe is associated with “pagan” religions.

4. Many evangelicals believe that the earth will soon end and be destroyed. Given that, there may seem little reason to protect the environment. However, this conflicts with the command to be good stewards of the earth.

I dette innlegget påstås det endog at Gud er pro olje og imot fornybar energi; "God is likely very pro-carbon since the coal, oil, gas, and water power [...] But I don’t think God is in favor of the “renewable energy” of wind and solar because turbines.

Det finnes studier som viser at  religiøs tro gjør en dårligere rustet til å forstå den fysiske verden:

Does Poor Understanding of Physical World Predict Religious and Paranormal Beliefs?

Summary
Although supernatural beliefs often paint a peculiar picture about the physical world, the possibility that the beliefs might be based on inadequate understanding of the non-social world has not received research attention. In this study (N = 258), we therefore examined how physical-world skills and knowledge predict religious and paranormal beliefs. The results showed that supernatural beliefs correlated with all variables that were included, namely, with low systemizing, poor intuitive physics skills, poor mechanical ability, poor mental rotation, low school grades in mathematics and physics, poor common knowledge about physical and biological phenomena, intuitive and analytical thinking styles, and in particular, with assigning mentality to non-mental phenomena. Regression analyses indicated that the strongest predictors of the beliefs were overall physical capability (a factor representing most physical skills, interests, and knowledge) and intuitive thinking style. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


 

 

Climate Change: Most Americans Don’t Know About the Scientific Consensus


Improving Climate Change Acceptance Among U.S. Conservatives Through Value-Based Message Targeting.

Although prior research has identified communication strategies for reducing climate change skepticism, recent research suggests such approaches can backfire. To explore this issue, we report on a preliminary study investigating two prominent messaging styles: consensus and targeted messages. While consensus messaging did not produce significant effects, targeted messages emphasizing free market solutions to climate change were effective at improving conservatives’ climate change acceptance. Furthermore, the inclusion of consensus information did not improve or diminish the effects of the targeted messages. These findings underscore the utility of targeted messaging in improving climate change acceptance among political conservatives.


20.KLIMAFORNEKTING FRA FOSSIL BRENSEL-INDUSTRIEN OG HVORDAN DEN KOPIERER TOBAKK-INDUSTRIENS METODER 

HVA OLJE/KULL-SELSKAPENE VISSTE
En helt ny studie bekrefter at ExxonMobil visste om AGW, men at de valgte å sponse frontgrupper og tankesmier som har sådd og som fremdeles sår tvil om menneskeskapte klimaendringer:

This is the first empirical comparison of Exxon Mobil’s internal and peer-reviewed research with its public statements on climate change. It’s pretty clear that their strategy was the same as tobacco’s. Delay looked to them as a smart business choice, and it may well have been.

1982. Exxons egne forskere bekrefter at menneskers forbruk av fossile brensler øker konsentrasjonen av C02 i atmosfæren og bidrar til økt drivhuseffekt.



Videre står det  svart på hvitt at Exxons egne forskeres funn dermed var helt "in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric C02".



Konklusjonen i studien er derfor veldig tydelig:

5. Conclusion Available documents show a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public. The company’s peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil’s advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil’s own. This is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al term the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM)—a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge [57, 58]. Likewise, the company’s peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal documents acknowledge the risks of stranded assets, whereas their advertorials do not. In light of these findings, we judge that ExxonMobil’s AGW communications were misleading; we are not in a position to judge whether they violated any laws.


For 30 years, Lenny Bernstein was the climate expert at the oil giant Exxon-Mobil.

Through the years, he watched Exxon funnel up to $30 million to climate change deniers. He watched the company dismiss the Rockefellers, Exxon’s founders, as they urged the company to accept climate change and switch to clean energy. Now, in light of an email penned by Bernstein himself, it’s been revealed that Exxon knew that climate change was real all along — and was confident that the government would eventually regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

ExxonMobil and Climate Change: A Story of Denial, Delay, and Delusion. 

CO2's Role in Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s

Historical records reveal early industry concern with air pollutants, including smog and CO2, and unwanted regulation.Further, Exxon's ownresearch confirmed fossil fuels' role in global warming, decades ago:

"a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles" And "Some countries would benefit but others would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed"

Exxon's Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell.

Still, Laurmann told his audience several times that the evidence showed that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely "caused by anthropogenic release of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel burning.

"In his conclusions section, Laurmann estimated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures with "major economic consequences." He then told the task force that models showed a 5 degrees Celsius rise by 2067, with "globally catastrophic effects."

The industry then sowed doubt for decades about climate science, spending $2.9 billion on advocacy advertising alone in a 10-year period ending in 2015.

It spent $1.3 billion more lobbying to shape public policy on energy issues during the same period and has pumped out $827.9 million in campaign contributions since 2000 to elect sympathetic officials at the local, state and federal levels.

To sum, Exxon, circa 1980:

1) Accepted the CO2 effect.
2) Accepted ECS near +3 C.
3) Accepted that a consensus on AGW had emerged.
4) Accepted that prior to 2030 there would be hazardous impacts, with the possibility of catastrophic impacts beyond that.





Les mer om Exxons miljøsynder her og her

Denne videoen oppklarer ExxonMobils kyniske agenda:

In this week’s “Time to Wake Up” speech, Sen. Whitehouse focuses on the two recent investigations that have revealed what Exxon’s own scientists understood about the effects of carbon pollution on the climate, and discusses the company’s massive misinformation campaign. 




Exxon wanted scientists who disputed the mainstream science on climate change to oversee Washington's work with the IPCC, the authoritative body that defines the scientific consensus on global warming, documents written by an Exxon lobbyist and one of its scientists show. The company persuaded the White House to block the reappointment of the IPCC chairman, a World Bank scientist. Exxon's top climate researcher, Brian Flannery, was pushing the White House for a wholesale revision of federal climate science. The company wanted a new strategy to focus on the uncertainties.

Exxon has enjoyed the consistent support of many Republican attorneys general and Republicans in Congress. That includes Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee and a climate change denier, whose largest campaign contributions last year came from the oil and gas industry.[...] Unlike Smith, Exxon's legal team doesn't deny climate science. In fact, Exxon now acknowledges the risk of burning fossil fuels and has expressed support for a carbon tax. Echoing an argument he made to defend Philip Morris more than a decade ago, Wells says the company should be judged by its current behavior, not what it might have done in the past.


2014: Exxon snur - igjen:

ExxonMobil Acknowledges Climate Change to Shareholders

ExxonMobil, the largest oil and gas company in the U.S., has agreed to release a Carbon Asset Risk report by the end of the month. The Carbon Asset Risk report would purportedly describe how ExxonMobil assesses the risk of stranded assets from climate change.

Our position on climate change:

We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action.

Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.


Peter Sinclair from Midland, Michigan (born 1953), is an environmental activist whose focus is on climate change. He is a YouTube blogger, explorer and founder of the ClimateCrocks.com website. Together with climate researchers he's traveled to hot spots of climate change, for instance to Greenland as part of the Dark Snow Project. Sinclair is perhaps best known for producing the Climate Denial Crock of the Week series on his YouTube channel . Videos have received praise from climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, and the late Stephen Schneider.[3] In 2012, he launched another YouTube series, entitled This is not Cool, for the Yale Project on Climate Change Communicatio.



Også oljegiganten Shell visste om AGW. De lagde til og med en film om det. Les mer her.

 

Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change.

Analysis of Peabody Energy court documents show company backed trade groups, lobbyists and think tanks dubbed ‘heart and soul of climate denial’.

Roy Spencers og Richard Lindzens syn på AGW og CO2s rolle er som snydd ut av nesen til Peabodys Energys eget syn. La oss se hvor godt synspunktene samsvarer:

Just last year, Peabody wrote to the White House Council on Environmental Quality describing carbon dioxide as;

a benign gas that is essential for all life” and denying the dangers of global warming.

After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving. Richard Lindzen

“While the benefits of carbon dioxide are proven, the alleged risks of climate change are contrary to observed data, are based on admitted speculation, and lack adequate scientific basis,” the company wrote in the 24 March 2015 letter

"There are benefits to more CO2 in the air, and probably to a little bit of warming. Roy Spencer

Men det er sikkert helt "tilfeldig" at Spencer og Lindzen står på lønningslisten til USAs største kullkompani og "tilfeldigvis" har et syn på AGW som er fordelaktig for Peabody. Helt sikkert.

The truth behind Peabody's campaign to rebrand coal as a poverty cure

The world’s largest privately-held coal company has a long history of attacking climate science. Now it is working to change the conversation from a climate crisis to one of global poverty – with coal as the solution

Why the energy industry is so invested in climate change denial

It's no secret where this denialism comes from: the fossil fuel industry pays for it. (Of the 16 authors of the Journal article, for instance, five had had ties to Exxon.) Writers from Ross Gelbspan to Naomi Oreskes have made this case with such overwhelming power that no one even really tries denying it any more. The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we've ever faced.

Why doesn't it fold, the way the tobacco industry eventually did? Why doesn't it invest its riches in things like solar panels and so profit handsomely from the next generation of energy?

Seven climate change myths that big oil continues to perpetuate

FRA DDT VIA TOBAKK TIL C02 - MILJØVERNERNES EVIGE KAMP MOT DEN SKITNE INDUSTRIEN


Part of the strategy to derail climate change policy was sowing seeds of doubt about the scientific consensus (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). Laboratory evidence suggests that the inclusion of contrarian voices into public discourse can distort perceptions of expert opinion, and may make people question whether there is enough agreement among experts to guide policy (Koehler, 2016). 

And the lies won’t go away. In 2007, one of the think-tanks responsible for climate science misinformation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, began reiterating one of the main refuted claims about Carson. She was said to be responsible for millions of deaths due to the ban on DDT to control mosquitoes that spread malaria.


The reality is that while DDT was banned for agriculture in the US – and spraying on kids in suburban neighbourhoods – it was never banned for anti-malarial use. Even now. But the political right and the dirtiest chemical industry players in all of industrial capitalism have long painted environmentalists as killers – of people, progress and jobs.

Les om hvordan fossil-brensel-industrien bruker de samme metodene i dag som tobakksindustrien brukte før:
“For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence.This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”

 

Organizations worried about climate change have long drawn comparisons between the petroleum and tobacco industries, arguing that each has minimized public health damages of its products to operate unchecked. Some have urged federal regulators to prosecute oil companies under racketeering charges, as the Department of Justice did in 1999 in a case against Philip Morris and other major tobacco brands. Oil companies bristle at the comparison. But overlap between both industries existed as early as the 1950s, new research details.




Info: Fra Wikipedia:   
Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner.The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results.

 Bilderesultat for merchants of doubt movie poster
For the tobacco industry, the tactics successfully delayed government regulation until long after the establishment of scientific consensus about the health risks from smoking. As its second example, the film describes how manufacturers of flame retardants worked to protect their sales after toxic effects of the retardants were discovered. The central concern of the film is the ongoing use of these tactics to forestall governmental action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in response to the risk of global climate change. Se filmen på youtube eller her.


Mange husker ennå hvordan tobakksindustrien i sin tid romantiserte tobakkrøyking gjennom reklamekampanjer som skulle fortelle oss at tobakkrøyking var kult, og ikke forbundet med helsefare. Husker du Marlborough-Man-reklamene? Lurer du på hvordan det gikk med dem? Mange av dem døde av røyke-relaterte sykdommer!
































Etter å ha forpestet oss med DDT og så tobakk, er tiden kommet for å si at CO2 ikke er farlig:



 

21. SPONSORENE - DEN ENORME PENGESTØTTEN BAK KLIMALØGNENE


Denne beskrivelsen av klimafornekterindustrien er uhyggelig presis:

-a well-funded, highly complex and relatively co-ordinated denial machine. It includes “contrarian scientists, fossil fuel corporations, conservative think tanks, and various front groups”, along with “amateur climate bloggers … public relations firms, astroturf groups, conservative media and pundits, and conservative politicians”. The goal is simple and clear: no regulation on industry, and what environmental sociologist Robert Brulle calls the “institutionalisation of delay” on climate policy. The tools are simple as well: lies, obfuscation, defamation and the creation of an image of scientific uncertainty.

What is the current state of affairs after 30 years of this climate denial machine? In the US, at least 180 congressional members and senators are declared climate deniers. They’ve received more than US$82 million in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and its partners.

Den økonomiske støtten bak løgnene om klima har flere kilder; Her er de sentrale; Koch Brothers/ Koch Industries. Og Donors Trust. Koch Brothers/ Koch Industries har opprettet en rekke organisasjoner som systematisk sprer løgner om klima. Det samme har nevnte Peabody Energy, USAs største kullgruveselskap. Disse har etablert tankesmier, industri-interessegrupper og lobbyvirksomheter som i lang tid har jobbet med å diskreditere vitenskap om klimaforandringer. Du finner f.eks både The Heartland Institute og CEI på denne listen over mottagere av hemmelige donorpenger. 

Mer om CEI: Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

“Over the last decade, fossil fuel companies distanced themselves from open climate denial. Much of the funding for climate denial went underground, with corporations and conservative billionaires routing the funds through secretive networks such as Donors Trust."

 

 
EXXON

Tankesmienes nettverk. 
Disse har hyret inn en lang rekke med falske eksperter og oppblåste autoritetspersoner som sprer klimaløgner og tåkelegger klimadebatten på vegne av Exxon og Koch-brothers.

“By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus. This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, ProfJohn Christy; the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.”




Og som vi allerede har sett i del 3, Heartland Institute har sponset bloggen WhatsUpWithThat, som altså er en svært viktig del av deres klimatåkelegging-propaganda-apparat. Som beskrevet i deres styrepapier:


I denne videoen innrømmer Exxon sjokkerede nok at de har sponset tankesmier som sprer klimaløgner:


Og mannen som i videoen har tatt imot betalinger for å skrive klimaløgner. Denne karen her


 

Han er da ikke tilknyttet tankesmien....nei...det kan da ikke være sant at også denne Willie Soon, virkelig er tilknyttet våre "venner" i:



Her ser vi hvordan Willie Soons klimaløgner har skapt myter som ble en del av klimaskeptiker-"vitenskapen". Mye tyder på at det er Willie Soon som er mannen bak alle disse "det er solen som forårsaker global oppvarming"-løgnene og myten om at dagens oppvarming ikke er enestående fordi det var "varmt" i den såkalte Medieval Warm Period. "At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work,” the New York Times reported in February 2015"

I am here today to testify that the climate of the 20th century is neither unusual nor the most extreme. Around 1,000 years ago, the temperature over many parts of the world was warm. A widespread cooling then set in for several centuries, followed by a recovery to 20th century warming." testified on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2003.

Disse to sentrale klimafornekter-mytene har i åresvis blitt postet og repostet i klimafornekternes ekkokammere som "bevis" mot AGW. Disse samme mytene har  - som vi har sett - Klimarealistene slukt med åte og et par mil med snøre.
"Perhaps the most publicized recent example was the publication of a study by astronomer Willie Soon of the Harvard University-affiliated Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors, claiming to demonstrate that 20th century global warmth was not unusual in comparison with conditions during Medieval times."

Except for two grants from the Mount Wilson Observatory, all of Soon's research since 2002 has been funded by fossil fuel interests, according to Harvard-Smithsonian records. The 11 Soon papers range from denial of human-caused global warming to articles that downplay the role of climate change in ecological impacts.
He not only took a lot of money, he hid that he took it. He keeps taking it. He knew what he was doing, regardless of his public statements since. Between the duplicity about funding and his inability to get the science right, he has no credibility. Others should be believed long before Soon or his ‘friends’.
Og du er selvsagt ikke en ordentlig Heartland-crank uten å komme med de sedvanlige angrepene på IPPC; "In November 2014, Soon accused the IPCC of “scare mongering” in response to 2014 United Nations Climate Change Synthesis Report, which confirmed the fact that “emissions of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic drivers have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.” “When will IPCC admit that their scare mongering is simply not working anymore? Our wonderful planet is not IPCC’s private casino parlor,” Soon said."


How Exxon Mobil, Koch brothers created a culture of climate doubt 

Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change

Abstract
Drawing on large-scale computational data and methods, this research demonstrates how polarization efforts are influenced by a patterned network of political and financial actors. These dynamics, which have been notoriously difficult to quantify, are illustrated here with a computational analysis of climate change politics in the United States. The comprehensive data include all individual and organizational actors in the climate change countermovement (164 organizations), as well as all written and verbal texts produced by this network between 1993–2013 (40,785 texts, more than 39 million words). Two main findings emerge. First, that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time. These findings provide new, and comprehensive, confirmation of dynamics long thought to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse. Beyond the specifics of climate change, this paper has important implications for understanding ideological polarization more generally, and the increasing role of private funding in determining why certain polarizing themes are created and amplified. Lastly, the paper suggests that future studies build on the novel approach taken here that integrates large-scale textual analysis with social networks.

KOCH-BROTHERS

 

SourchWatch har en svær oversikt om Kochs her.

The father of these famous rightwing billionaires was Fred Koch, who started his fortune with $500,000 received from Stalin for his assistance constructing 15 oil refineries in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. A couple of years later, his company, Winkler-Koch, helped the Nazis complete their third-largest oil refinery. The facility produced hundreds of thousands of gallons of high-octane fuel for the Luftwaffe, until it was destroyed by Allied bombs in 1944. "

 

 Jane Mayers bok, The Dark Money, er anbefalt lesning.

Bilderesultat for jane dark monet





Disse setningene oppsummerer alt hva dette handler om:
"The AEI was one of dozens of the new thinktanks bankrolled by hundreds of millions from the Kochs and their allies. Sold to the public as quasi-scholarly organizations, their real function was to legitimize the right to pollute for oil, gas and coal companies, and to argue for ever more tax cuts for the people who created them. The amount of spent money has been staggering. Between 2005 and 2008, the Kochs alone spent nearly $25m on organizations fighting climate reform. One study by a Drexel University professor found 140 conservative foundations had spent $558m over seven years for the same purpose.[...] The genius of this strategy was to “turn corporate self-interest into a movement among people on the streets”.



The Doubt Machine: Inside The Koch Brothers' War on Climate Science​

Narrated by esteemed actor Emma Thompson, ​the documentary "The Doubt Machine: Inside the Koch Brothers' War on Climate Science" reveals how the Koch Brothers have used their vast wealth to ensure the American political system takes no action on climate change​,​ ​and are​ ​attempting​ to buy the 2016 Congressional elections.


In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

"Shell, ExxonMobil and Marathon Petroleum got subsidises granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry"



“Big oil, gas, and coal have huge influence on politicians and governments and they get that influence the old fashioned way – they buy it,” said Kretzmann. “Through campaign finance, lobbying, advertising and superpac spending, the industry has many ways to influence candidates and government officials seeking re-election.”














"Government rules intended to slow climate change are “making people’s lives worse rather than better,” Charles Koch explained in a rare interview last year with Fortune, arguing that despite the costs, these efforts would make “very little difference in the future on what the temperature or the weather will be.”


 



Å sverte forskerne og vitenskapen er også en del av klimafornekter-propaganda-maskineriet. Vi har sett hvordan NASA, NOAA og Climatic Research Unit (CRU) og en rekke av verdens ledende forskere (Hansen, Mann etc) stadig har blitt angrepet av tankesmier og frontgrupper på vegne av fossil brensel industrien. Det er det eldste trikset i boken; Beskylde motparten for å drive med det samme som en selv, for å rettferdiggjøre og ufarliggjøre og dekke over sin egen kyniske virksomhet. Edderkoppen i midten av nettet? Koch-brothers, igjen. Koch-brothers har i mange tiår bekjempet miljøreguleringer for å kunne fortsette med å spy ut forurensing. Denne egeninteresse-propagandaen blir ofte pakket inn i en ideologisk setting der "venstreskrudde kommunister" er en hendig fiende som "bare er ute etter å skade amerikansk økonomi".

Det hysteriske, paranoide konspiratoriske og desperate falske "oss mot dem" høyreskrudde konservative ideologiske Ayn Rand anti-regjering anti-regulerings budskapet med sine obligatoriske og forutsigbare angrep på uønsket (klima)vitenskap og brysom konkurrerende grønn energi-filtrert gjennom tankesmier - resirkulert av ekkokammer-blogger, amatør-fornektere og nettroll, er egentlig kun en urinstråle av kynisk fossil-brensel industri-egeninteresse-PROPAGANDA - kamuflert som en politisk høyre/venstre kamp som liksom handler om "folket på gata".Tobakksindustrien bruke, som vi så, nøyaktig de samme metodene for 30 år siden.


"cynicism about the motives of public servants, including government-backed climate scientists, can be traced to a group of neoliberals and their ‘toxic’ ideas".


Why do so many “sceptics”, particularly those who form part of the organised machinery of climate science denial, feel comfortable in accusing climate scientists of only being in it for the money?
Duke University history professor Nancy MacLean suggests some answers in her new book Democracy in Chains: the Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.

The book documents how wealthy conservatives, in particular petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch, teamed up with neoliberal academics with the objective, MacLean says, of undermining the functions of government in the United States.
Buchanan and Koch developed and propagated their ideas through a private organisation called the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) – an influential group known as the “neoliberal thought collective” that was established in 1947 by famed free market economist Friedrich Hayek. Buchanan was a former president and joined in 1957. Koch, who has poured millions into groups attacking mainstream climate science, joined MPS in 1970.
Maybe Charles Koch isn't worried about climate change because he doesn't get the science. MPS has about 500 members in more than 40 countries. In the US it has many members who also work at think tanks that push climate science misinformation and attack renewable energy.

Og bare på gøy. Noen som vil vedde? Finner vi flest folk fra olje/kull-industrien eller flest klimaforskere på Forbes' liste over de rikeste 2500+ menneskene i verden mon tro?

Denne saken oppklarer virkeligheten for klimaforskere. Scientists Getting Filthy Rich On Climate Change? Here Are The Facts 

 
global warming money


Joda, Koch-brother sponsede interessegrupper og tankesmier jobber også på høygir for å sverte solpanel / fornybar energi:
According to Department of Energy data, solar jobs already outnumber coal-related jobs by a factor of more than 2 to 1, despite solar making up a much smaller share of the overall grid.
All in all, I'd say these incentives make a strong pitch for solar: You can help address climate change, grow the renewable energy economy, create jobs, and save money. Win-win-win, right?
Well, not if you're in the fossil fuel industry — or one of the politicians who owe them favors. And that's where things get messy.
In statehouses all over the country, there's a growing movement by industry front groups to undermine net metering and other renewable energy incentives. These front groups include the Edison Electric Institute, the utility industry’s trade association, and outfits such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, both of which are funded by the Koch brothers.


Politicians influenced by fossil fuel and utility companies are working feverishly to stifle renewable energy growth.  This slowdown of rooftop solar growth is problematic, and not just for solar customers and renewable energy companies."

Det handler om å forsvare egeninteressene til særlig kull-industrien. Her er det reelle “fiendebildet” som industrien nekter å ta inn over seg og som de ønsker å utsette så lenge så mulig:
-at kullindustrien taper arbeidsplasser pga effektivisering; flere maskiner og automatiseringer -og en generell nedgang i etterspørsel. Store utslipp og forurensing av nærliggende elver og vann har i tillegg ført til nedleggelser av mange kullgruver, -og fornybar energi som solpanel og vindmøller og skifergass fortsetter å vokse, er lett tilgjengelig og konkurrerer på pris. Elektrisk transport og smart energibruk er ikke bare miljøvennlig, det er også stadig mer lønnsomt. Skifergass overtar som hovedkilde for strømproduksjon i stadig flere delstater ettersom etterspørselen etter kull synker i USA. 


Det er altså ikke reguleringer og klimaskatter som er hovedproblemet til kullindustrien. Men dette er løgnen de prøver å selge ved å appellere til nasjonalfølelse og patriotisme - pakket inn i en (falsk) “krise” som liksom truer “nasjonale interesser". Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel var det noen som sa. Det pleier å være en god ide å la markedet selv bestemme hvilken type energi det vil ha. 

Here is the realities that coal industry refuses to take in and which they want to postpone as long as possible:

- the coal industry loses jobs because of efficiency, more machines and automations - and a general decline in demand. Large emissions and contamination of nearby rivers and water have also resulted in closures of many coal mines, and renewable energy such as solar panels and wind turbines and shale gas continues to grow, is readily available and competing on price. Electric transport and smart energy use are not only environmentally friendly, it is also more profitable. Shale gas takes over as the main source of power generation in an increasing number of states as coal demand drops in the United States.

There are, therefore, not regulations and climate taxes which are the main problem for the coal industry. But this is the lie they are trying to sell by appealing to national sentiment and patriotism - wrapped in a (false) "crisis" which, is like threatening "national interests." Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, there was someone who said. Its a good idea to let the market decide what kind of energy it wants.


22. KRIGEN MOT VITENSKAPEN


Fordi klima er så politifisert vil klimavitenskapen kontinuerlig bli angrepet av dem som ikke liker konklusjonene:

“Science is intimately connected to politics. It always has been. After all, politics is how we are supposed to solve problems in a democratic society, and science is crucial to nearly everything we do—our economy, our health, our security, our very future. You cannot isolate science from politics, or politics from science. To try is folly.”

How climate scepticism turned into something more dangerous

Doubts about the science are being replaced by doubts about the motives of scientists and their political supporters. Once this kind of cynicism takes hold, is there any hope for the truth? 

A documentary special reveals how climate change science has been under systematic attack; the multi-million dollar campaign allowed a climate change denier to be elected president.

The Koch Brothers are plotting a right-wing takeover of America’s judicial system.

Denne saken fra Scientific American forklarer hvordan politiske krefter og mektige interessegrupper jobber for å diskreditere vitenskap som ikke “passer inn” i deres agenda; “Powerful interests, some with huge profits at stake, have tried to undermine America’s scientists for decades. They’ve intimidated scientists. They’ve ridiculed them. Powerful interests have also put up other so-called “experts” who try to dispute the overwhelming body of evidence, yet somehow offering none of their own, to deliberately sow confusion into the public consciousness. At its heart, the War on Science is often an attempt to de-regulate industry and weaken environmental laws. Stifling science—especially on topics like climate change, toxic pollution, unsustainable agriculture, and animal welfare—is part of a ploy to undermine these safeguards, and to cast doubt on inconvenient scientific truths, all in the service of profits and power.” 

REPUBLIKANERNES ANTIVITENSKAP



Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.” “In some ways,” he added, “it’s become yet another of the long list of litmus test issues that determine whether or not you’re a good Republican.” 


“Pruitt was instrumental — he and A.G. Morrisey,” said Thomas Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries, an adviser to Mr. Trump’s transition team and the president of a pro-fossil fuel Washington research organization, the Institute for Energy Research. “They led the charge and made it easier for other states to get involved. Some states were keeping their powder dry, but Pruitt was very out front and aggressive.”





Now the only scientists on Pruitt's good list will be those with funding from polluters supporting Trump's agenda to make America toxic again." 
—Jennifer Sass, Natural Resources Defense Council


Tilstanden i The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) er virkelig ille nå. Vitenskapsmenn og kvinner har blitt erstattet med klimafornektere, kull-lobbyister eller tidligere petrokjemisk-industri-advokater. De store føderale karbonskjæringsprogrammene har blitt kuttet ut. Uttrykket "klimaendringer" ble ikke nevnt en gang i deres siste fireårige rapport.

Den nye sjefen Scott Pruitt har en lang historie med å la seg bli puttet penger på av petroleumsindustrien. Og selvsagt, Koch Brothers. Å ha ham som leder for dette departementet er som om Karius og Baktus skulle hatt kontrollen over norsk tannhelse.(Fløtekaramell er godt for deg, det er tannkjøttpynt og ikke får en huller i tennene av det).



Following Pruitt's confirmation, The Guardian reported that emails and other records released by the Oklahoma attorney general's office showed "a cosy relationship between Pruitt and the American Legislative Exchange Council [...] and other lobby groups sponsored by the Koch brothers." Released documents showed that while serving as Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt "acted in close concert with oil and gas companies to challenge environmental regulations, even putting his letterhead to a complaint filed by one firm, Devon Energy." Emails showed that American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers "provided Pruitt's office with template language to oppose ozone limits and the renewable fuel standard program in 2013."

Pruitt er selvsagt ikke fremmed for å sitere Bibelen for å tilfredstille sine kreasjonistvenner og de evangeliske miljøene som alltid rotter seg sammen og aldri er langt unna når det skal klimafornektes. Mer om dette senere.


"True environmentalism is using natural resources that God has blessed us with"
 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt may have skipped the G7 climate meeting more than a day early, but he has certainly kept busy staffing his agency.






Investigative journalist Bruce Livesey explains that the Koch brothers have used their enormous wealth to force Republicans to toe the line on climate change denial.


De sterke olje og kullkreftene i USA fikk overbevist Trump om å "avvente" Paris-avtalen. 

Men i praksis er det game over og USA ER ute. "En av dem som var sterk tilhenger av å forlate avtalen, var kullmagnaten Robert Murray, som ifølge Center for Responsive Politics ga mange hundre tusen dollar til Trumps presidentkampanje."




"If Trump follows through on his campaign promises and kicks off the multiyear process to withdraw from the Paris accord, it will tell us a lot about who Trump is listening to (short answer: not Ivanka or his secretary of state), especially since there are so few businesses or interest groups arguing that it's a good idea for the United States to defy the rest of the world. The few that are include 44 fossil fuel advocacy groups, as well as the far-right think tanks that promote climate change denial: the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. A "leave" decision would show that Bannon and Pruitt have considerable sway over Trump's decision-making. Add to the list Robert Murray, a coal magnate and head of the coal company Murray Energy. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Murray Energy donated its most yet to candidates last year, giving several hundred thousand dollars to Trump's campaign. CEO Robert Murray hosted a private fundraiser for Trump last June and has returned to Trump's side a few times since to push his favored policies, which include reversing regulations on the coal industry and pulling from the Paris accord."












“It’s a bad deal for America Pruitt continued. “It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach. China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030. We front-loaded all of our costs.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who spearheaded the effort to convince Trump to withdraw from the historic accord, has accepted $2,997,048 from the energy sector since 1989, records show. His largest single donor, Devon Energy, is one of Oklahoma's biggest oil and gas companies.




Paris accord: US and Syria alone as Nicaragua signs.

 

Siste: Syria signerer. 

 

 

 

I denne videoen ser vi hvordan republikanske politikere først støtter teorien om AGW. Så kommer sponsorpengene fra fossil-brensel industrien og hva skjer? De samme politikerne begynner plutselig å tvile på teorien om AGW. Du må se dette med egne øyne for å tro det.


















I  februar 2017 skjer klima-ignoreringen på presidentnivå, rett foran øynene på oss; og det er ganske brutalt. Klimaforskere og NASA-forskere i USA danner «motstandsbevegelse» mot Trump, som svar på presidentens forsøk på hindre dem i å fortelle sannheten om klimaforandringer. Trump bygger politikken sin på løgner. Derfor vil han kneble akademikere og forskere.“Derfor er det et diagnostisk tegn for et autoritært styre at friheten til å uttrykke seg begrenses, og en av grupperingene som først får sin ytringsfrihet innskrenket er de som forvalter samfunnets kunnskapskollektiv: lærere, forskere, vitenskapskvinner og –menn, akademikere ved universitetene.”

Klimaministeren om Trumps politikk og ekstremværet: – Nesten surrealistisk

Etter en hard orkansesong i USA, herjer dødelige skogbranner nå California. Samtidig er Trump-administrasjonen godt i gang med å demontere Obamas klimatiltak.

– Det er nesten surrealistisk, fordi realitetene i klimaendringene har vært så overtydelige de siste månedene. Det gjelder flere steder, men ikke minst i USA, sier klima- og miljøminister Vidar Helgesen (H) til VG.

Uttalelsen kommer i kjølvannet av at sjefen for den amerikanske miljøetaten EPA, Scott Pruitt, mandag sa at han vil signere et lovforslag som skal avvikle et av Barack Obamas viktigste klimatiltak – den såkalte Clean Power Plan som hadde som formål å senke utslipp fra kullfyrte kraftverk.


The 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) bekrefter at krigen mot vitenskap og fornuft ER kommet i høygir, og at alle virkemidler er tillat: “Joining the CPAC lineup was the usual cast of climate science deniers who branded climate change as “fake news,” scientists and environmental advocates as “some of the worst people in the world,” and polluted rivers catching fire in the pre-EPA era as “the price of industrialization.” Early in the conference, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) sponsored a panel called “Fake Climate News Camouflaging an Anti-Capitalist Agenda — and What President Trump Plans To Do About it.”Led by Craig Richardson, E&E has roots in a group which the Guardian described as having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations. Little surprise then that this panel was based on the idea that the media, NASA, and climate scientists are pushing climate change as part of an elaborate network of lies.”

En tidligere NASA-forsker oppklarer her.


Den frie forskningen trengte å si fra internasjonalt, og i april 2017 ble det arrangert en March for Science:

“At the very least, the Science March will be a celebration of the scientific method and its ability to inform policy. With Trump in the Oval Office, scientists have been losing seats at the policy-making tables. The hope is that the march will leave an impression: Science matters. Already Trump is calling for a dramatic reduction in the amount of money the US government spends on scientific research, he’s scaling back efforts at the Environmental Protection Agency to combat climate change, and overall, he seems to disregard or not seek out advice from scientific efforts.”

Scientists just published an entire study refuting Scott Pruitt on climate change.


SISTE:

Krigen mot vitenskapen fortsetter med full styrke:

John Holdren–an environmental scientist who served as Obama Science advisor and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for 8 years–emails ThinkProgress, “Bridenstine’s stance on climate change reveals him to be a fact-averse, scientifically illiterate ideologue and a danger, if confirmed by the Senate, to NASA’s leadership in space science and Earth science alike.”

BONUS-VIDEO: Al Franken BRILLIANTLY DESTROYS Rick Perry On Climate Change Science 6/23/2017




HOW A PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER DISCOVERED THE LIES AND DECIDED TO FIGHT FOR SCIENCE.

Les om en tidligere klimafornekter som ikke lenger orket løgnene. Han bekrefter mye av det vi har vært inne på.


At klimafornektere er skeptisk til vitenskap kommer ikke akkurat som noen bombe. Men, la oss se hvem andre som også er skeptisk til vitenskap. Hvem kan det være mon tro ? Mens vi venter på eventuelle twitter-meldinger fra anti-vaxxers og Flat Earthers, får vi kose oss med denne:

 

The evangelical Christian movement has been at war with environmentalism for decades—but the stakes have never been higher.

"Today we tend to think of [environmentalism] as a highly partisan issue and that it always was," Schwadel told me. "But the research clearly shows that it wasn't nearly as partisan especially among cultural elites and political leaders in the leaders in the 1960s and 1970s. It really started to become partisan in the 1980s or later 70s. [The Christian Right] may have played a role. It's probably not a coincidence that environmental perspectives became a lot more partisan as the Republican Party became a lot more tied to the evangelical Protestant community."
The proof of evangelicals' influence is that though there's little evidence Donald Trump himself thinks the Bible is the word of God—or has even read it all that deeply—he has put a number of biblical literalists in his cabinet, giving fundamentalists an enormous amount of power.

Vi har vært litt inne på det, men la oss se litt på det faktum at hvor hen det er klimafornekting, er kreasjonistene aldri langt unna:
 

23. KREASJONISTENE

Hvis noen skulle trenge å se flere skremmende eksempler på hvordan klimafornekting, evangelisk religion -med sin fordummende kreasjonisme - og politikk er vevd sammen, bare les denne artikkelen. Alt handler om å beskytte sine egeninteresser og tro - og fossil-brensel industrien. Edderkoppen i midten av nettet: Koch Brothers.

(Evangelical organization) The Cornwall Alliance “believes that American environmentalism is a “native evil,” and “one of the greatest threats to society and the church today.” Its founder, Calvin Beisner, holds a PhD in Scottish History and has called environmentalism “the greatest threat to Western civilization,” comparing it to jihad. Deres offisielle holdning til klima er som følger (ikke le):
“Cornwall declares that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”
The Cornwall Alliance does not disclose its funding, but it is a project of the James Partnership, which reported that half its income in 2012 came through the Donors Trust, a funding group Mother Jones described as the “dark money ATM” of the conservative right. Among its major contributors? Foundations funded and controlled by the Koch brothers, Mother Jones reported." La oss se litt på The Cornwall Alliances forbindelse til den Exxon-sponsede organisasjonen CFACT og andre tette bånd til oljeindustrien: «CFACT and the Cornwall Alliance, according to disclosures filed with the Washington State Secretary of State’s office, share a common fundraising firm, ClearWord Communications Group. ClearWord has helped raise millions of dollars not only for CFACT and Cornwall, but also for infamous polluter front groups like FreedomWorks, the Institute for Energy Research, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Last year, Cornwall produced a video with former Sen. George Allen (R-VA) attacking clean energy legislation as part of a campaign by the ExxonMobil-funded “American Energy Freedom Center.” Les om hvordan anonyme skattefradagspenger flyter gjennom Koch Brothers og Donors Trust, The Heartland Institute mm.

For de som vil lese enda mer om hvordan The Cornwall Institute finansieres. Her ser vi grunnleggeren av The Cornwall Alliance tale på en Heartland konferanse:


The Cornwall Alliance is an enforcer, stifling dissent in the evangelical community, smothering environmentalist tendencies before they gain a following.

“Throughout the history of the church, people have always found ways to use God and scripture to justify empire, to justify oppression and exploitation,” Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, an organizer with a pro-environmental Christian group called Young Evangelicals for Climate Action (YECA), told me. “It’s a convenient theology to hold, especially when we are called to drastic, difficult action.”

Many of these soothsayers are gathered together in an organization called the Cornwall Alliance—formerly known as the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, the same group that mobilized against Cizik’s environmental proposal—a network with ties to politicians and secular think tanks across the conservative landscape.








For almost 20 years, Beisner and members of the Cornwall Alliance have worked with establishment conservatives to bolster opposition to climate change: The Heartland Institute identifies him as a policy advisor on its web site, and he speaks regularly at the institute’s annual conference on climate change (though in an interview he curiously denied ever actually giving any policy advice to Heartland). The Heritage Foundation hosted the 2015 premier of Where the Grass is Greener, a documentary produced by the Cornwall Alliance. In May, Beisner and senior executives from Heartland, Heritage, and a slew of other billionaire-funded political entities like Americans for Prosperity and the Competitive Enterprise Institute sent a letter to Donald Trump urging him to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and asking him to stop funding United Nations global warming programs.

Freedom Partners is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. The organization, which was founded in 2011 under the name Association for American Innovation, is purposed to promote "the benefits of free markets and a free society." It is partially funded by the Koch brothers, and sponsors various Republican politicians and conservative groups.

Stopp opp litt og se på dette bildet. Det viser hvordan hele klimafornekter-nettverket er vevd sammen. Sponsorene vi har vært innom. Koch-brothers, Exxon. Kreasjonistene. Det evangeliske miljøet. De republikanske politikerne, senatorene. Tankesmiene. Ekkokammerbloggene. Alt er her.





Det er blitt ganske vanlig å høre fra kreasjonister at klimaendringer ikke kan være menneskeskapte rett og slett fordi “bare Gud kan forandre klimaet". Dette er mennesker som også tror at Jorden er 6000 år gammel, at eventyret om Noahs ark er sant, at alle verdens dyr fikk plass ombord i arken! - “Mennesket kan ikke forandre klimaet, det er det bare Gud som kan. Klimaet er i endring, klimaet har alltid endret seg, og det vil alltid endre seg. Problemet er at noen mennesker er så arrogante at de tror de kan endre klimaet, men man kan ikke endre klimaet." (Senator James Inhofe). For en hendig måte å få oppmerksomheten bort fra CO2 ikke sant?

Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen og Anthony Watts - er du overrasket? - was all signatories to a Cornwall Alliance open letter supporting Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator under the Trump administration.
Her ser vi den kjente klima-tåkeleggeren Richard Lindzen med en fot i The Heartland Institute og en fot i kreasjonist-propagandaen til PragerU. Tilfeldig? Neppe.

 

Og kreasjonisten Tim Ball som vi tullet med i del 2. Han er ikke med i Heartl...




Facts matter – especially when they come from trusted sources.
There’s been some debate among social scientists about how much facts matter in today’s politically polarized society. Some have warned about the “smart idiots” effect, in which people who are more knowledgeable are often less persuadable, essentially because they have more tools with which to reject information they find inconvenient. However, other research has shown that climate-specific knowledge does increase peoples’ acceptance of human-caused global warming. The question then becomes how to arm people with that climate-specific knowledge.


24. KLIMA-KREASJONISTENE 


Så, OK, la oss se litt på hvordan klimavitenskap blir presentert på hjemmesidene til kreasjonistene i The Cornwall Alliance. Det som kommer nå bør ikke overraske noen. Ringen sluttes. Finn frem popcornet! Klare? Husker dere den løgnaktige grafen til Heartland Institutes John Christy? Grafen vi allerede har debunket? Ikke le, men her ser dere grafen på hjemmesiden til kreasjonisteneThe Cornwall Alliance:




HER ER IGJEN, DEN SAMME GRAFEN HENTET FRA KLIMAREALISTENE:


Klimarealistene og kreasjonistene i The Cornwall Alliance og PragerU, bruker altså nøyaktig det samme kildematerialet for å promotere sin alternative klimavirkelighet. Klimarealistene ER rett og slett Klima-kreasjonister! Klimarealistenes junk science om klima er rett og slett kreasjonist-propaganda. La oss kikke enda nærmere på denne saken på hjemmesiden til The Cornwall Institute; I samme artikkel kommer påstanden om at det “sola som styrer klimaet”.


Nå, hvor har vi hørt det før? La oss friske opp minnet:




Husker du Patrick Moore, som PragerU hevdet var en av grunnleggerne av Greenpeace? Her gjentas løgnen: 


Ellers er artikkelen full av løgner som vi allerede har debunket. Før det -som forventet - blir 100% tullball; at det er en verdensomspennende konspira bak menneskeskapt global oppvarming. (Hørt det før?) Og det er jo helt hinsides ironisk at mennesker som tror at Jorden er 6000 år gammel og at alle verdens dyr fikk plass ombord i en båt, beskylder noen, hvem som helst, for å fordreie virkeligheten:



Hvis du trodde at deres kreasjonist-hjemmeside var full av Jesus, bibelpreik og anti-evolusjons-svada? Tro om igjen. Det finnes, for all del, men her handler alt om å spre klimaløgner på vegne av sine rike onkler. Innholdsfortegnelsen under Issues, er så full av klimasaker at de finner det nødvendig å, ikke le, skrive en sak om at de IKKE mottar penger fra Big Oil! Utakk er verdens lønn var det noen som sa.


25. OPPSUMMERING/4 typer klimaskeptikere



Klimafornektingens opphav er USA. Mektige fossil-brensel interesser, først og fremst Koch-Brothers og Exxon har i mange tiår brukt enorme pengesummer på tankesmier og lobbygrupper som med sine oppblåste autoritetspersoner og falske eksperter skal så tvil om konsekvensene av C02-utslipp. Alt dette for å verne om sine egeninteresser samtidig som de ønsker å fremstille det som om at det handler om "folket på gata". Disse har opprettet en rekke ekkokammere på nettet der propagandaen "vaskes". Akkurat som når tobakksindustrien prøvde å så tvil om at tobakksrøyking økte risikoen for lungekreft og at nikotin fører til avhengighet. (Mange av disse vet om AGW, men vil ikke erkjenne det.) . Mange av klimaløgnene finner veien til Norge hovedsaklig gjennom The Heartland Institute, deres ekkokammere som bloggen WUWT, og deres "norske gren" Klimarealistene. Disse kreftene har i lengre tid angrepet NASA, NOAA og IPPC og, som vi har sett, også prøvd å fortelle oss at det må være en verdensomspennende konspira bak AGW. En del av strategien har vært å få folk til å tro at det er en -oss mot dem - en høyre mot venstre-greie for å gjøre klimafornektingen til "en del av pakken".“Bevisene” deres holder ikke mål når vi utsetter dem for kildekritikk og sjekker dem opp mot seriøs klimavitenskap. Men de har likevel oppnådd sitt mål; å tåkelegge og så tvil. Disse kreftene, disse hvite eldre mennene,  er Klimaskeptiker type 1. 

For det konservative høyre blir miljøtiltak og klimaskatter kun sett på som “venstreskrudd sosialisme; angrep på en industri og en livsstil. De trengte en ny busemann og fiende etter at Sovjetunionen gikk i oppløsning, da deres "hendige" syndebukk, kommunismen ikke lenger var en reel trussel. Den nye "busemannen" fant de i miljøbevegelsen."Green is the new Red". 

FNs Klimapanel og denne “falske klimakrisen”er, for dem, bare et verktøy for å pålegge dem avgifter og restriksjoner. Det er sosialisme. For mange venstreskrudd kommunisme. Derfor er det og flest folk på høyresiden politisk som "ikke tror på" menneskeskapte klimaendringer. Mange mener til og med at vitenskap er en "leftist" konspira. Klimavitenskap passer ikke inn i deres politikk, følelser og ideologi; som helst skal være fri bruk av C02 uten myndighetenes inngripen. Uten skatter og avgifter. Dette er som snydd ut av nesen til Ayn Rand...at individet fritt skal kunne leve sitt liv så lenge det ikke går ut over andre individers rettigheter. Dette er nært knyttet til tanken om et negativt rettighetsbegrep, staten skal ikke gripe inn i enkelmenneskets liv annet enn av hensyn til andre enkeltmenneskers rettigheter.
Ikke kan fornekterne se klimaendringer utenfor sin egen stuedør heller. Det er skylapper. De er politisk motiverte skeptikere. Det er ideologi. Stammetenking. De er "forpliktet" til å ikke akseptere noe som kan medføre nye skatter og avgifter. En stor undersøkelse gjort av Nordstat og publisert av NRK viste at "den største andelen skeptikere er menn, på over 50 år, som bor på bygda og som ikke har høyere utdanning. Mens 24 prosent av folk med kun videregående utdannelse er uenig i påstanden, er andelen 13 prosent blant folk med over fire års høyere utdannelse. Frp og Sp har de mest klimaskeptiske velgerne. Mange er nasjonalister. Disse utgjør Klimaskeptiker type 2.


Den myndighetsskeptiske grenen av konspirasjonskulturen omfavner klimafornekting fordi det hører inn under "ting som myndighetene holder skjult for oss". Disse har en generell lav tillit til samfunnsinstitusjoner.  Mange av disse folkene har jeg erfart tilhører “skrothøyre". De er gjerne også "tilfeldigvis" antivaxxere, chem-trailers og anti GMO og tilhører den såkalte “det er sant for meg“-generasjonen som gjerne har gått seg alvorlig vill i alternativa-land. De er "gutteroms-googlere" som liker å avdekke hva som "egentlig" foregår i verden og de elsker å "sitte på" informasjon som bare de "vet om" og som resten av verden - "the sheeple" aldri vil finne ut av fordi disse bare leser "VG og Dagbladet" -og ser på "NRK og CNN". I deres verden er det document.no, Resett og andre høyreskrudde nettsteder som Breitbart som forteller "sannheten". De mener at alle klimaforskere er korrupte, at den fagfellevurderte vitenskapen om klima er juks -og finner sin "klimavitenskap" i fornekterblogger og på YouTube. At myndighetene i USA også “holder tilbake sannheten” om hva som “egentlig” skjedde 11 september 2001, blir derfor to sider av samme sak for en paranoid konspiratoriker. Disse utgjør Klimaskeptiker type 3

Resten av fornekterne er kreasjonister og konservative kristne. Disse er Klimaskeptiker type 4. I USA har mange av disse alliert seg med Klimaskeptikertype 1. Disse 4 typene er dog, som vi har sett, vevd inni hverandre.



Bevisene for AGW er bunnsolide: Tar vi bort politikk, religion og ideologi, og går til kildene, til dem som kan klima, klimaforskerne, ser vi at alle observasjoner, og elementær fysikk og kjemi, forteller oss at mennesker bidrar til klimaendringer og at konsekvensene av disse er i sving pr i dag.

27. AVSLUTNING

La oss avslutte med å se på noen av "belønningene" disse antivitenskapelige kreftene får. Hvilken særs dårlig innflytelse de får på mennesker og kloden. Her er det litt for alle. Olje og kullindustrien får fjernet noen flere hindere og kan fortsette sin drift uten å ta særlig hensyn til miljø og klima mens kreasjonistene/konservative koko-høyre-kristne får belønning for sin innsats gjennom at støtten fjernes for Planned Parenthood, transgender-mennesker nektes adgang i militæret og abortloven blir strengere. Abort blir endatil kriminelt i enkelte tilfeller. “Legislation advanced by the GOP included bills to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency, repeal the Affordable Care Act, defund Planned Parenthood, and criminalize certain types of abortion.” Og, ikke overraskende, nå skal de sterke interessene som har sponset høyresiden i USA ha betalt:











Motstanden mot AGW dreier seg ikke om sannhetssøken om miljø og klima, men om religion, konspira, og egeninteresser.

28. BONUS

Her hjemme er det nok den tidligere Ap-statsråden Karl Eirik Schjøtt-Pedersen som er den mest kjente lobbyisten. Han lever av å reise rundt og si ting som at Norge må utvinne så mye olje og gass som mulig for å "redde" klimaet. For det er visst ikke så farlig, sier han. Den norske oljen skal nemlig være så «miljøvennlig». Dessverre for Schøtt-Pedersen lagde en Brennpunkt-dokumentar på NRK hakkemat av argumentasjonen hans. Jo lengre utover i dokumentaren vi kommer jo mer må han flytte målstolpene. I dokumentaren kommer det og frem at flere norske oljefelt har utslipp som er langt over verdensgjennomsnittet. Det er greit å lobbe Karl, men kan en ikke være ærlig?

29. FAKTAVERKTØY /LENKER

Det finnes en del meget pålitelige faktasjekkere på nettet. Les mer om dem her. Snopes.com er blant dem som har aller størst troverdighet. Nettsider som ScepticalScience er et perfekt sted å starte. Dette fordi denne siden utelukkende baserer seg på den beste oppdaterte fagfellevurderte klimavitenskapen. Det samme kan sies om bloggen RealClimate, som drives av ekte klimaforskere. Hvis du er interessert i vær/klima/global oppvarming. Lytt til en klimaforsker. Det er mange solide kilder og nettsteder som formidler oppdateringer om vær og klima. 

F.eks:

http://www.cicero.uio.no/no

https://bjerknes.uib.no/forside 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

https://climate.copernicus.eu/

http://www.climatecentral.org/

http://www.realclimate.org/ (Klimaforskernes egen blogg)

http://www.climatecentral.org

https://www.carbonbrief.org

https://www.newscientist.com/

https://www.met.no/vaer-og-klima/kl...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/climate/

http://climate.org/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ (Bruker kun fagfellevurdert vitenskap)

https://royalsociety.org/

For å avsløre klimaløgner, junk science og myter:


https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch  

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming

http://skepdic.com/

https://skeptoid.com/

http://theness.com/roguesgallery/

http://www.skepsis.no/



http://www.snopes.com/

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://www.politifact.com/

https://www.truthorfiction.com/

http://faktisk.no/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...


Kritisk tenking/kildekritikk:

http://www.friskogfunksjonell.no/ki...

https://psykologisk.no/2014/06/tankefeil-en-roff-oversikt/


BONUS
Lenke til alle Potholer54 sine videoer:  

Lenker til tusenvis av fagfellevurderte artikler:
Lenker til tusenvis av fagfellevurderte artikler:

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/general-papers-on-agw/

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/papers-on-climate-science-history/

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/


Papers on formal attribution


INNHOLD DEL 1:
1. Innledning
2. Klima som politikk
3. Stammetenkning og psykologi
4. Kildekritikk og kritisk tenkning
5. Den Vitenskapelige Metode
6. De beste bevisene for menneskeskapt global oppvarming og at det er C02 som er hovedårsaken
7. De vanligste klimamytene
8. Konsensus
9. Konsekvenser av klimaendringer

INNHOLD DEL 2:
10. Klimaløgnmakernes taktikker, konspira, junk science, stigmatiserte kunnskap og uærlige budbringere
11. The Great Global Warming Swindle-filmen

INNHOLD DEL 3
12. Klimarealistene
13. Alle klimaløgners mor - Tankesmien The Heartland Institute
14. Tilbake til Klimarealistene
15. PragerU og kreasjonisten bak
16. Klimarealistene anmelder bok
17. Konklusjon så langt

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Magnetic poles / Earth's magnetic field

While the Earth's magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, Earth's rotational axis shifts only a little bit, mostly in response to th...