skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Brown Vows to Fight “Cult-like” Climate Change Deniers

California Governor Jerry Brown used some harsh words to criticize Republicans who deny the existence of climate change at his conference on climate change in San Francisco on Thursday.

Here's just one example of what the governor had to say:

"The main thing we have to deal with in climate change is the skepticism, the denial and the cult-like behavior of the political lemmings that would take us over the cliff."

And Brown said he knows a thing or two about cults.

"I don't know whether I'd say my Jesuit experience was a cult experience, but it was dogmatic, somewhat one-sided, to say the least, and not particularly open to contrary opinion. So that is not what climate science is all about."

Speaking to a couple hundred leaders in politics, business and science, the governor vowed that California will fight global warming critics to put the world on a more sustainable path.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Derek'

Derek | December 15, 2011 at 3:55 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

Global warming deniers seem determined to kill the American Dream.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'AndrewSanDiego'

AndrewSanDiego | December 18, 2011 at 2:49 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

Derek, comparing skeptics of the claims of Imminent! Global! Disaster! to Holocaust deniers is a malicious slander that says far more about you than it does about anything else.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'lesliegraham'

lesliegraham | December 19, 2011 at 2:32 a.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

It is overwhelmingly the climate change deniers, not scientists, who feign outrage and disingenuously attempt to link the term denier to the holocaust.
This is transparant and utterly bogus.
When the world refers to you as climate change deniers it means precisely that: climate change deniers. It has absolutely nothing to do with that obscure group of right wing Europeans who deny the holocaust and you know it.

Those who honestly and openly use logical, rational analysis to critically interpret the data are sceptics, no matter what they conclude. Those who indulge in a range of dishonest and disingenuous practices are not sceptics, regardless of their conclusions - they are deniers.
They are deniers regardless of the subject of the facts they are denying whether it is the holocaust or climate change.

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'll grant you they are (or rather used to be - you're increasingly being seen for what you really are nowadays) effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Deniers use conspiracy theory, selectivity (cherry-picking - such as the fatuous"no warming since 1998" meme ), diversionary tactics, fake 'experts', impossible expectations of 'scientific proof', general fallacies of logic and when that fails they will simply tell flat out lies.

Examples of common topics in which denialists employ all these tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Climate Change denialsim, HIV/AIDS denialism, Holocaust denialism, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate denialism campaign) and anti-vaccination/autism denialism.

They are all forms of denial but climate change deniers have no connection to creationists or holocaust deniers other than that they deny the overwhelming scientific evidence against their idological position

It is not a "malicious slander' to refer to those who know nothing of climate science and are utterly incapable of facing up to the reality of human-caused climate change as deniers.
It is a perfectly legitimate descripition.
If the caps fits.........

And that is not even to mention the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of deniers whining and hand-wringing at being called out for what they truly are when they themselves routinely slander scientists with outrageous accusations of 'communist conspiracy' and 'fraud' and 'fudging the data' etc etc etc etc. All of which have been thoroughly and completely debunked a thousand times.

So - cry your faked faux-outrage tears as much as you want - you are fooling no-one anymore.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'AndrewSanDiego'

AndrewSanDiego | December 19, 2011 at 5:38 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

lesliegraham: "It is overwhelmingly the climate change deniers, not scientists, who feign outrage and disingenuously attempt to link the term denier to the holocaust. This is transparant and utterly bogus."

How sad that you are so monumentally and willfully ignorant that you probably actually believe the nonsense you have posted here.

The comparison of skeptics of Imminent! Global! Disaster! from atmospheric CO2 to Holocaust Deniers is indeed a deliberate and long standing libel:

Ellen Goodman: ‘Global Warming Deniers Are Now on a Par with Holocaust Deniers’ http://newsbusters.org/node/10730

Mark Steyn: “Climate Holocaust Denier” : http://townhall.com/blog/g/e1f72884-3877-4537-8849-f6e13776a492

Even Nature Magazine, once considered a real science magazine, libeled Bjorn Lomborg as the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/2713/

I suggest you stop beclowning yourself with foolish screeds like you've posted here and learn something about the claims behind CAGW.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'AndrewSanDiego'

AndrewSanDiego | December 19, 2011 at 5:39 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

(continuing from previous response to "lesliegraham":

For one, ask yourself why it is that the leading lights of "climate science" have as POLICY the refusal to follow the Scientific Method? No one who refuses to allow independent verification of their work can in any sense of the word be considered a scientist. But the "scientists" behind CAGW all keep their data and methods secret.

Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit for years - even before Climategate - exposed this policy by the "scientists" behind the CAGW movement: Michael Mann and the Hockey Team, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Lonnie Thompson, and all the core IPCC "lead authors".

The reason for the policy of secret data and methods has become clear when they are discovered (like Mann's "CENSORED" ftp directory) or forced out (like Briffa's Yamal data by a Royal Society publication) - the raw data is cherry picked, then massaged with phony statistical methods, or just literally turned upside down. Phrases like 'short-centered PCA', 'Yamal', and 'Upside Down Tijlander' are infamous among those who have dared take an honest look behind the "climate science" curtain.

"lesliegraham", if you have a shred of integrity, scientific or otherwise, you will educate yourself. I recommend"The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" by Andrew Montford. It is a very readable history of the CAGW movement and the story behind Michael Mann's phony claim that for over a thousand years, there was no global warming (or cooling) - until the 20th century.

I also suggest you follow some blogs by real scientists (but whom you call "deniers"): Judith Curry's "Climate, etc" blog (she is Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology), Steve McIntyre's "Climate Audit", or Roger Pelkie's "Climate Science" blog. All these real scientists have published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. All understand (as I do) that the Earth has warmed (since the Little Ice Age), and all understand the radiation physics principles that a doubling of CO2 over the next century will only cause one degree of warming without the theoretical "positive feedback" claimed by your CAGW "scientists" (who refuse to defend their theories in public debate).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | December 19, 2011 at 7:17 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

@ANDREWSANDIEGO, some years ago, there was a Florida-based syndicated columnist printed in the UT, that likened DOMA and similar legislation to . . . (I am not kidding) the Holocaust! It wasn't Goldsborough, it was another guy pushing an extremist gay agenda who had absolutely no common sense or understanding of world history.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | December 19, 2011 at 8:16 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

@Andrew, your attempt to steer the discussion away from science and into some argument about Holocaust comparisons is ridiculous.

People from all political sides have used such comparisons, and the thought that one side or the other "owns" this tactic is absurd.

A simple internet search shows two candidates for the Republican nomination for President have done so:

Here is Michele Bachmann invoking the Holocaust when describing those who don't agree with her economic policies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/01/michele-bachmann-holocaust-taxes_n_855910.html

Gingrich compares Obama's policies to Nazis and Stalinist Russia:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/05/jewish_group_condemns_gingrich.html

Personally, I feel Nazi/Hitler/Holocaust comparisons are weak no matter where they come from, but in the case of global climate change you are indeed talking about something that has and will continue to harm and kill a lot of people, so while it's not a tactic I would use personally I see the point.

Next, it remains fact that the majority of scientists who specialize in Climate are still in consensus that human beings are responsible for contributing to climate change which, as throughout history, is also changing naturally. It's the consensus of scientists who specialize in climate that pollution by man-made sources is increasing in onset and severity the naturally evolving *changing* process that is the Earth's climate.

Have there been scandals and misrepresentation by some scientists who agree with anthropogenic climate change (or as you call it 'CLIMATEGATE')?

Yes.

But there have also been scandals and misrepresentation by those who deny anthropogenic climate change. So concluding that because a small number of scientists misrepresented data is proof that ALL data supporting anthropogenic climate change data is inaccurate is ridiculous.

Might I remind you of the famous "petition" those trying to discredit climate scientists floated around and deniers rushed to quote. It turned out it was riddled with fake names, duplicate names, and the "scientists" who did provide genuine signatures had BS degrees in Engineering and worked for companies who were against environmental regulations relating to polluting. (Shall we call this one "DENIERGATE"?)

When one **excludes** the data manipulated by scandal and **includes** all the data supported by credible scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, the fact **STILL** remains that the vast majority of scientists who specialize in climate are in consensus that humans are impacting the planet's climate.

And if science isn't your thing, use simple logic my dear:

Do you really think all the crap we dump in our waters, air, and earth simply has no affect on our planet?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'AndrewSanDiego'

AndrewSanDiego | December 20, 2011 at 8:53 a.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

Peking,

Stop setting up straw men and engage in honest debate for once.

I wasn't the one who repeated the lie that calling people who believe in science "deniers" *isn't* comparing them to Holocaust deniers.

And then you say such comparisons are all right with you with the despicable statement "but in the case of global climate change you are indeed talking about something that has and will continue to harm and kill a lot of people, so while it's not a tactic I would use personally I see the point."

You catastrophe-mongers really haven't got any honest arguments, do you?

You won't discuss the POLICY of "climate scientists" who dominate the IPCC to keep their data secret in deliberate violation of the Scientific Method, so you just engage in libel of those who ask inconvientent questions.

You can't defend Mann's use of short-centered principle components analysis so you repeat the bald-faced lies about the Oregon Petition: Peking:"Might I remind you of the famous "petition" those trying to discredit climate scientists floated around and deniers rushed to quote. It turned out it was riddled with fake names, duplicate names, and the "scientists" who did provide genuine signatures had BS degrees in Engineering and worked for companies who were against environmental regulations relating to polluting. (Shall we call this one "DENIERGATE"?)"

In fact, only a tiny handful of the over 9000 PhDs who signed the petition were trolls from YOUR side who lied. The rest of your claims are also lies, which is of course why you make that without any citations as to where you got them, no? The few fake names have been removed, but over 9,000 VERIFIED signatures against YOUR claims of Imminent! Global! Disaster! are still there and still valid. You catastrophe-mongers love to use your false claims of a scientific consensus but when faced with a REAL scientific consensus by over 9000 real scientists, revert to your usual tactic of libel.
See http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

Some of us, Peking, understand REAL science, and despise the Lysenkoist frauds who lie about imminent global catastrophe in order to keep their gravy train running. It isn't about science, it's about the billions of taxpayer dollars flowing into the pockets of "scientists" who fly 5-star resorts to Bali, Durban, Rio, and other resorts for their 'conferences'.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'AndrewSanDiego'

AndrewSanDiego | December 20, 2011 at 9:45 a.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

The pseudo-scientists behind the Hockey Stick and other global warming catastrophe frauds like to claim the Climategate emails need to be read "in context". Curious that THEY never actually discuss the context of what was happening at the time the emails were sent. But Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has been doing so since Climategate 1.0 and now with the Climategate 2.0 even more so. The latest posting of his documents the context of some the FOIA refusals, events in which he was personally involved: http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/20/eudora-and-the-briffa-attachments/

Another good 'context' posting is on Phil Jones' deliberate hiding of documents that were subject to FOIA requests: http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/18/new-light-on-jones-document-deletion-enterprise/

Note: Steve McIntyre is a statistics expert who documented the Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" was a result of improper statistics and cherry-picked tree rings. His forensic analysis of that was verified and supported by the Wegmann Committee and the National Academy of Science (and thanks to Climategate 2.0, we know his fellow members of the Hockey Team also knew Mann's "study" was false). He has also documented again and again the policy of "climate scientists" and the IPCC to violate the most core principles of the Scientific Method.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bcspiders'

bcspiders | December 20, 2011 at 9:48 a.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

"For one, ask yourself why it is that the leading lights of "climate science" have as POLICY the refusal to follow the Scientific Method? No one who refuses to allow independent verification of their work can in any sense of the word be considered a scientist. But the "scientists" behind CAGW all keep their data and methods secret."

Not so and a rediculous assertion. Data and results are openly displayed in the now thousands of published papers in refereed scientific journals. If you bother to read the IPCC report those papers are referred to in literature citations in the various sections. See the following page titled "Publications and Data".

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

This issue is complex and the report and supporting literature is voluminus so it takes some time and digging to get through it. There is an Executive Summary but it is just that-a summary. You will need to read the special report sections that go into much more detail.

The results are where the data takes us. Sometimes we don't wish to hear the reality but that doesn't change the reality. If denying that climate is changing, whatever the cause, becomes policy we will be caught flat-footed again and people will suffer as will the country. (4 years before Katrina happened the results were predicted but ignored. We know the results)

Most of the denial "research" comes from those supported (you can trace the funding) by grants from those heavily invested in the status quo such as Chevron, BP, and Exxon-Mobile, to name a few. This is exactly the repeat of the tobacco industry's model that worked well for them -- for a time. Do you really believe that they are unbiased and are we really supposed to trust to trust them?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | December 20, 2011 at 11:03 a.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

AndrewSanDiego,

Your argument failed on your very first post.

1st Fail: Derek never mentioned the Holocaust. You inexplicably did.

2nd Fail: Writing such inflammatory (and utterly ridiculous) lines like "Imminent! Global! Disaster!" dissolves any grain of legitimacy you may have had.

Final question: Why the monomaniacal disbelief in global warming? Is it simply because you don't want to change any consumption habits you have?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | December 20, 2011 at 11:54 a.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

CaliforniaDefender,

How dare you say such things about my grandmother!

AndrewSanDiego,

That's how badly you distorted Derek's initial comment. That's not the worst thing you did, though: You attacked perfectly reasonable people based on your specious and tangential reasoning. You could have simply written, "Derek, go ahead and ask me what I think about the esoteric political machinations of climatologists so that I can express my views." That would have been a tad bit more productive.

CaliforniaDefender - Sorry for having to include you to make the point. I agree with your post.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | December 20, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

@Andrew,
I'm not going to waste time responding to each point of your politically-motivated spew because you are starting to repeat yourself, but I find it disturbing that you are unable to see the human cost of anthropogenic climate change. It's real. I have seen it.

And trying to defend the widely-debunked petition also makes you look silly. The qualification of "scientist" to sign that petition was anyone with a BS degree. Just because you have a BS degree does not mean you are an expert in climate, and, restating the example I gave earlier, under the ridiculous stipulations of the petition an engineer with a BS degree who works for a company with a financial interest in environmental deregulation could be considered a "scientist".

So go ahead and cherry-pick your denier scientists and write long posts citing them. It proves squat. Someone on the other side of the issue could do the same thing. The fact of the matter still remains that **the vast majority of scientists who specialize in climate agree that humans are impacting our planet's climate**.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | December 20, 2011 at 2:35 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

DeLaRick,

Please feel free to use me in your game of Water Polo Yahtzee whenever you like. Speaking of which, stop defaming elves. Especially around Easter! They are not responsible for baba ghanoush. I have "lots" of "quotation" marks and plenty! of! exclamations! to back it all up!

But then AndrewSanDiego is just going to deny it anyway. Oh well, happy holidays!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | December 20, 2011 at 2:37 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

And Andrew, it's pretty funny that you use financial gain as a motive for scientists who agree with anthropogenic climate change. Are your partisan bifocals so thick you are unable to see the financial ties to people/corporations/politicians who are trying to debunk anthropogenic climate change?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Satariel'

Satariel | December 20, 2011 at 3:23 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

Sure, the climate is changing. Just like it has been for thousands of years. Even if humans were not on the earth, climate change would still happen. Some people are just using this fact to make some money.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | December 20, 2011 at 4:05 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

Satariel,

Exactly how will some people make money off of climate change?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JohnL'

JohnL | December 20, 2011 at 6:15 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

@AndrewSD/Satariel lol! this is the same cut&paste rightwing PR firm garbage all over blogs, verbatim, deflect,deny,obfuscate,insult,just flag these idiots they troll blogs 24/7! 10s of thousands of climate scientists all over the world agree that globalwarming/climatechange is real and man-made, 1 didn't but then admitted being wrong. Concerning the 9,000 signatures these were collected by a dead guy that lived on a small farm

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | December 20, 2011 at 11:02 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

Satariel, nobody is suggesting the earth's climate doesn't change naturally. But the evidence shows that man-made pollution is making it **more severe** and **faster onset**.

Lungs naturally deteriorate throughout one's life from normal breathing, but cigarette smoke can hasten this and bring more severe and devastating consequences.

Is it really *THAT* difficult for you and andrew to comprehend how pollutants can damage organic matter (i.e. our oceans and ecosystems which play vital roles in climate)?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | December 20, 2011 at 11:11 p.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

I will give Andrew a shred of credit - - at least he didn't bring up John Coleman in his list of deniers

(Coleman is the loony KUSI weatherman who is a big denier and local folk hero amongst San Diego wingnuts).

Back before I started boycotting the journalistically-void San Diego Union Tribune, I used to be amazed at how many deniers referenced Coleman in articles about anthropogenic climate change.

They used to say that since Coleman was a "co-founder of the Weather Channel" then he must be a credible climate scientist.

Never mind the fact he was schooled in journalism, not science.

KUSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII for the climate challenged!!!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Satariel'

Satariel | December 21, 2011 at 10:05 a.m. ― 2 years, 9 months ago

CaliforniaDefender: Have you not heard of the "Green" industry?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'randolphslinky'

randolphslinky | December 27, 2011 at 3:52 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

I think Peking-Duck has covered this topic well and while I'm impressed with some of the counter arguments to this position, I'm mostly convinced that human beings are having an impact on the planet in ways that will ultimately be detrimental to the lives of many if we don't change the way we are living. This isn't a planet of a few million hunters and gatherers anymore, we are currently somewhere around 7 billion people on this planet and the world is heavily industrialized, de-forested, and nowhere near what it was even 200 years ago. While I'm not a scientist, I just can't see how what we are doing in size and scope of what we have today could not change things. I hope I'm wrong. I actually salute this person for taking the many slings and arrows of what does seem to be an irrational kind of zealousness. I suppose I can stand by now for many insults to my intelligence for agreeing with (him/her).

( | suggest removal )