Global warming :: is it just a 'chinese hoax' like trump told us or is it serious?

Climate science deniers reject truth or established climate science.   They use rhetoric tactics to create appearance of scientific controversy when there is none.  Without evidences to convince climate scientists, deniers promote unwarranted doubt to confuse the public.  They falsely brand themselves as scientific skeptics.  But they are involved in political attempts to influence government policy, undermine public trust in science and efforts to adapt to climate crisis.  Fortunately, polls show most people worldwide know the climate crisis is real and want governments to do more to fight man-made global warming.

@thirdperson

 Climate science deniers reject truth or established climate science

For example?

@thirdperson

 But they are involved in political attempts to influence government policy

You do not think your side are the main ones doing this?  What is an example of the 'skeptics' of this MMGW scam trying to influence government policy and NOT just prevent the scammers from making policy based on the scam?  There are none.  Before this scam these folks were not trying to set policy; now they are simply trying to prevent the scammers from setting policy.

I am interested in your examples of this. 

@thirdperson

:The fossil fuels industry has entered the chat:

For how long has the fossil fuels sector been one of the biggest political contributors? How many lobbies are bigger contributors? Defense and big pharma? That's probably it. You think all that money over all these years has been spent simply to spread truth and "prevent scammers from making policy based on the scam"? Alright.

No, I am not saying that.  But now they have to spend an amount to counter that.

But this pales in comparison to the scam money.  I think around $100M or so now for the lobbying AND that is not just to counter the scam but other issues as well.  I guarantee they are spending more and asking for even more than that amount on the scam.

It would appear this is the order more or less on lobbying in Ms.  No idea without looking what a breakdown for countering MMGW would be, but obviously cannot be that much in comparison now.  So, not as bad as it would seem to be:

$375 Pharma 

$225 Electronics

$180 Insurance

$140 Securities

$130 Real estate

$130 Business

$125 Electric utilities

$125 Oil & gas

$125 Hospitals

$125 Health services

Due to an atypical drought and above-average temperatures in Canada this spring, that country’s wildfire season started early this year, resulting in massive waves of smoke spreading across the northern portions of the U.S. this summer. Over 120 million Americans from the Midwest to the East Coast were under air quality alerts.

In the last five years, the U.S. and Canada both saw more than three times as much forest land burn on average as they did during a five-year span in the 1980s.

Studies have linked that change to hotter temperatures and worsening droughts, an effect of climate change.

The conversation reveals US oil and gas industry spend 27 times more than clean energy advocates on lobbying, advertising and political contributions.  From 2008 to 2018, $2 billion spend to question science of global warming and attack policies to solve problem.  This helps to explain why it took congress 35 years to pass a major climate legislation.  The Inflation reduction act. 

Absurd to suggest climate scientists are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data for a money-making scam.  Research grants aren't making climate scientists rich after expenses are counted.  Climate research worldwide is conducted by scientists who aren't paid by governments or foundations.  However oil corporations are among the richest in the world.  Since they have the most to lose (from reduced carbon emissions), their incentive to lie is greatest. 

  Please do more research on this. I do not think you fully understand the concerns they have.  It is not just with the Al Gores or Bill Gates, etc.  If you do not understand how grants work, maybe research that as well.  It is absolutely understandable why oil corporations are rich.  This is not hard to understand, they are providing a resource and service that very few cano do without -- the economy's lifeblood, as it were.  They absolutely have more to lose, by definition.  The others do not have anything to lose -- that is the point, they are the scammers and provide no service or resource.  It is not a situation that you seem to understand the issues on.  You are only repeating all of the standard phrases and agenda-driven talking points you have heard/read from the radical's side.

@thirdperson

 Still waiting on you to answer the many, many previous questions and points instead of just wandering onto another point when your previous ones are questioned or fall flat. 

@thirdperson

 Climate science deniers reject truth or established climate science

For example?

@thirdperson

With maximum winds of 125 mph, Idalia was the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Florida’s Big Bend region in more than 125 years.

NOT in FLORIDA; JUST THAT REGION.

Many other hurricanes intensify that quick.  Explain Camille, right about the same time you radicals were calling for an ice-age to start.

@thirdperson

 Climate science deniers

What does this mean? Define this phrase? No climate scientist that I know denies 'climate science' and no person I know denies 'climate science'. I am interested in what you think you mean when you say this.

promote the myth that scientists disagree

Absolutely they disagree and you can find this with a bit of research.  This is true in any scientific field.  That is why you study things and try to 'replicate them in a lab' as they say.

I would encourage you to start doing additional research.

@thirdperson 

 @thirdperson   Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson: Idalia is the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Florida in 125 years. Clearly, it is influenced by climate change which is making hurricanes intensify at a faster rate. In 24 hours, Idalia went from category 1 to 4 because of warmer waters. Normally major hurricanes require days to develop. For example, you can retract this obvious and intentional misleading statement.

Still sticking with this one? Or do you want to retract or amend this false statement? 

@thirdperson

 The conversation reveals US oil and gas industry spend 27 times more than clean energy advocates on lobbying, advertising and political contributions. 

So?  Oil and gas is a long time and well established industry with way more revenue and business than clean energy start-ups.  It is not even the right comparison to make.

You are conflating clean energy with MMGW scammers -- they are not necessarily the same thing.  You are implying the groups are against clean energy and a cleaner planet.  That is not true.  But that is what this radical group does.  It tries to accuse someone of something that is not even in play at all.  MMGW and clean energy do not necessarily have anything at all to do with one another.  That is a lazy intellectual trick the group does when their argument will not hold up on its own to close scrutiny.  

Do not cloud the issues; stay focused.

 Man-made climate change is settled science after decades of scrutiny by thousands of scientists.  The odds that a few dissenters are right while everyone else is wrong are close to zero.  Rare for settled science to be overturned.  So we should trust climate science and scientific consensus urging climate action.  Not climate science deniers. 

Although most people trust experts, a minority distrust science and scientists.  They rather believe lies than truths.  Mostly republicans have been losing trust in science while trust among democrats remain steady.  Lack of trust is harmful because it leads deniers to ignore science based recommendations.  Especially troubling are deniers attempts to discredit legitimate experts by using bad faith critique. 

@thirdperson

 This is incorrect.  

@thirdperson

That is correct!  

Man having an effect on climate is one thing. Man-made climate change another. Seems like a lot of folks have the "all the way" mode or nothing approach. Cannot see the tree in the forest so to speak.

Every event is it's own set of circumstances. Droughts have been happening since the dawn of time, yet now every drought is man's fault. Hurricanes the same thing. Heat wave, extreme cold waves, all man's fault now. It's ridiculous when you study history. For most of earths existence the polar regions were ice free. Oh my God they're melting! 

From Climatedata.Canada; "Many other significant droughts have occurred in Canada, especially in the prairies.  At least ten severe droughts have struck including those in 1910-11, 1914-15, 1917-20, 1928-30, 1931-32, 1936-38, 1948-51, 1960-62, 1988-89, and 2001-03."

But now, a drought means man did it! 

@thirdperson

That is logical

Good quote from an article today about this:

Concerning the predictable hysteria from some TV reporters standing in ankle or hip-deep water, the climate Chicken Littles are wrong again. According to the webpage Advancing Earth and Space Sciences: "Global hurricane counts and Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) have significantly decreased since 1990 likely due to a trend toward LaNina. (The) decreasing trend in global hurricanes and ACE is primarily driven by (the) downturn in western North Pacific activity."

CNN went full crisis mode when its top climate "expert" Dr. Bill Weir said: "The cost of (using fossil fuels) is becoming bigger with every storm. Science has been warning about this for a very long time, in many ways it has been predicted..."

Not all "science" and not all scientists, especially those who are in the field of environment and not receiving grants from the federal government, which could skew the credibility of their findings. The organization Climate Intelligence has published a letter signed by 1,609 scientists who say there is no climate emergency. Their letter is loaded with scientific facts and not statements by politicians and reporters who repeat familiar lines.

In addition to their citation of scientific facts, they write: "To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem with today's climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should we not free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?"

@thirdperson

@Raiders22

 900 million dollars can buy a sizable amount of BS ! >

https://glennfay.medium.com/pseudo-science-group-launches-misinformation-campaign-to-oppose-climate-action-b7870e20f3c8 

Guus Berkhout is the founder of Clintel org and before that the founder and scientific director of the Delphi Consortium, which does seismic research for a consortium of oil and gas companies.…I wonder how they split up the money for this publication?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout. 
500 co-signers only 10 self-identified as climate scientists.  Interesting I would never known this without your last post!