Skeptic Project

@Kaiser,

Thanks for posting that, honestly. If people could just calm down and discuss this civilly it would be quite interesting.

Even though you leave out ALL the relevant issues surrounding Bjorn Lomborg, it has prompted me to write a proper article on this entire episode since it seems a fuller explanation and information is required to explain it.

@oreolvrs:

The whole point of the episode is to attack the hysterics of environmentalists and maybe if you chilled a bit and simply googled each of the individuals interviewed youd probably would have seen our point of view.

I DO know the people involved, that's why I said he is a fake expert. He is not an expert at all and was accused of "scientific dishonesty" by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty for his book and was heavily criticised by climate scientists.

Having said that he now appears to believe the exact opposite to what P&T used him to argue back when they made the show anyway!

But all that will be discussed in the article. I will, among other things, be making a list of all the false claims they make and linking to a known GW denialist source making the exact same claims and then a rebuttal.

One thing that I do want to stress, it is my opinion that they are GW "denialists". However others may want to call them "skeptics" instead, I don't personally see the distinction when they use all the same arguments as them and when (like Penn) still can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that GW is happening at all. Penn says his problem with GW is emotional and political and his scientist friends all make "compelling arguments". Its a shame he didn't think to use them in the episode.

@ Ed

The link points to all of the relevent information, and I only included a small mention of the case made in Denmark surrounding his publication (I believe it was a book) some years back. Again, what I wanted to draw focus on was that the episode and its guests spoke to sensationalism and not specifically to scientific validity and that environmental skepticism is not global warming denialism. You can argue against environmental skepticism if you really want to, but their positions should be adequately articulated as being distinct. They are not interchangeable, and likewise you cannot say that because another group shares several positions of equivalent argumentation that they are in fact the same. There is a core, and pressing distinction, and I think it is one that Penn is forced to, perhaps reluctantly, admit to- namely that there is evidence of anthropogenic climate change. What is highlighted in thier episode, and can be seen in the first clip linked to Youtube, is that there are representations of climate change in popular media that are sometimes greatly exaggerated or over-played. Personally, I do see the fundamental scientific evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a concern, but the scientific evidence is also not shown to have a total understanding of every aspect of how this climate change will manifest itself. I repeat, this is not to say that it doesn't exist, but instead to say that the media only represents worst case scenarios when there are experts still debating what the manifestations of climate change will be. In any event, they are detrimental and they are fairly concerning. This is the point of departure between our views on the matter.

@ Snob

Yeah, sorry it was for Ed. It was pretty early and I wasn't even a half cup of coffee into my day yet.

That's not true at all. Global warming denialists have absolutely no problem referring to it as a hoax. You can't stick everyone in a convenient box in order to maintain your narrative.

Its also worth pointing out that no GW denialist calls themselves a denialist, they always refer to themselves as "skeptics".

While semantically accurate, this does nothing to actually show that there are actual skeptics who are concerned not about anthropogenic climate change existing, but of what its outcome will be (see my edit above). Its like CTers calling themselves skeptics. The semantics don't support a very real and necessary distinction. We all have to acknowledge that there is a group of skeptics who are concerned with outcomes of, not existence, anthropogenic climate change. Lomborg is in many regards a environmental skeptic, but you cant call him a denier as he does come out and say that climate change is real in the interview I quoted (i'll find the link a little latter). If you want to say he doesn't take it seriously, or that he should be viewed with skepticism because of the lawsuit filed against him regarding his publication, that's fine, but to be truly accurate we must acknowledge whats running underneath all of this. I do think Lomborg is right- we polarize the debate far too much at the expense of careful action.

That's true I can't call Lomborg a denier in the same sense, since he says he doesn't deny AGW. That's why he is peculiar in how he seems to try everything to downplay the science around global warming. Experts criticising him say it must be deliberate but I don't think it matters as that is hard to prove. The fact is that he promotes false claims about climate change and the science around it, that is why he is so heavily criticised by climate scientists.

Patrick Moore however is another issue entirely. I think its pretty clear he is a great example of a GW denier since his claims about it are so extreme and in that sense in stark contrast to Lomborgs

I'm out right now Matt so I'm writing this from my phone, I gave a link to an interview where he says what I said he said. If he has changed his mind since then I'll check that out when I get back

Or one of these:

Wow I really could say anything and you'd pretend it was the most unreasonable thing ever

Just what was so crazy? I said I was out and couldnt look at what you'd posted, but that if Moore had contradicted himself, changed his mind or meant something different to what he said in that VIDEO INTERVIEW I POSTED EARLIER, then I would have to take a look. The fact is Moore still said what I said he said in that interview, if there is something he said that is different then I need to take a look at that.

Essentially I was saying, thanks for the information I'll make any possible correction if there is indeed a correction to make, when I've had time to review it.

yes, that's SO unreasonable!

You didnt even read my post did you?

I do wonder if I just said I agree with you if you'd even notice anymore lol

I don't know what you really believe Matt but you sure seem to be acting like a denialist Matt. Remember that guy on here a while ago arguing with Muertos about Global Warming? He kept trying to insist that we give a crap about Al Gore. What am I meant to be offended you posted that gif? That is the problem Penn seems to have with Global Warming apparently, he just doesn't like Al Gore. Guess what its not Al Gore that came up with Global Warming and it isn't a bunch of hippies that say its important.

Dunno why I bother, we both know you're trolling.

We shall see Matt, but maybe in the mean time you can explain why Moore said what he said in that video I posted and why he is considered a known GW denier. And btw denying AGW is also refereed to as GW denial. He is definitely one, the question is merely just how extreme he is. What you posted shows he may not be quite as extreme as he sounded in that FOX interview, but I'm going to have to look into it more to check. As always Im open to being wrong, but I'm fairly certain what I'll find.

Protip: Fox edits interviews well after the fact to maintain their narrative.

Quit being suckers.