Posting Right-Wing Talking Points Regarding Climate Change On DU Doesn't Make Them

[Hissyspit]

ANY LESS right-wing talking points. Or any less false or fallacious.

The right-wing talking points (including the ludicrous 'well, are they calling it global warming or climate change today, hunh?!!) are wrong, deliberately disingenuous, and based in misinformation, disinformation, false logic and fallacy.

This post is not intended as flame-bait or a suppression of discussion, but a call for reason within this forum as opposed to the parroting of liars. It is disturbing to see on this website not honest legitimate skepticism, but unconsidered repetition of "arguments" that have been debunked here NUMEROUS TIMES. (And, yes, some posters are just trolls. I don't think it is against the rules or controversial to state that.) Posters who feel "attacked" for holding views in opposition to the established scientific consensus should not be surprised when this occurs after their parroting of continuously debunked right-wing talking points (as opposed to legitimate questioning).

Anyone who may be finding themselves confused or feeling they be may be under the influence of by right-wing talking points meant to argue that man-made global warming contributing to climate change is not occurring, should go to the YouTube channel of well-informed DUer greenman3610 and view ALL the videos in his "Climate Denial Crock Of The Week" series, where he very thoroughly and very intelligently debunks all the bunk.

And there is a LOT of bunk used in attempts to discredit and muddy public opinion on the science and theory of global warming and climate change (oh noes!! it's a theory, that means it's not true!). Most likely you will locate the particular talking point and see it shown up as the fallacy, misinformation, disinformation and logic-challenged argument that it is.

Here is another excellent source of information, the Skeptical Science website. I also recommend Climate Progress.org located at this link.

AND you need to read the following new post by David Fiderer of Huffington Post (the ENTIRE thing, go to the link) - and know that if you want to continue to believe the debunked talking points originating with the right-wing as the basis of your skepticism, the people he quotes here are your confederates (and these people too):


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/you-know-fox-news-is-lyin_b_480202.html

David Fiderer
Banker/Writer
Posted: February 28, 2010 11:40 PM

You Know Fox News Is Lying Whenever The Words "Global Warming" Are Uttered

Daniel Moynihan's seminal essay "Defining Deviancy Down," took direct aim at the likes of Juan Williams and Ceci Connelly, who, in exchange for money and media exposure, lend legitimacy the charlatans and reprobrates of Fox News, an outfit devoted to relentless repetition of The Big Lie. On a recent All-Star Panel, used to commence a 48-hour propaganda cycle, Connelly and Williams were used as foils for Chris Wallace and Bill Kristol, who injected a lie in order to frame the debate on global warming:

KRISTOL: Phil Jones, who's the fellow -- the climate scientist who was a huge advocate of the climate change and global warming hypothesis, who was in the center of the "climate-gate" scandal, said a couple of days ago in a BBC interview for the first time, I believe, that it may have been the case -- may be the case -- the Medieval warming period, 1000 to 1400 A.D...

WALLACE: I remember it well.

- snip -

In order to reverse the meaning Jones' remarks, writers for Kristol and Wallace deleted a major qualifier:

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

Given the absence of evidence to back up either possibility, it's a somewhat meaningless aside. But Jones was very clear that neither scenario, nor any other prior periods of solar and/or volcanic forcing, would be relevant to the rise in global temperatures during the past 60 years. Jones categorically rejected the notion that the current rise in temperatures was not man-made. That "huge concession" was a pure invention by Wallace and Kristol, who used it as a retort to the fact-based remarks of Connolly and Williams.

- snip -

The most important evidence was suppressed by Wallace, who kept touting the phony "climate-gate" story, which had been thoroughly discredited by the AP's fact checking, and by Connolly, who declined to challenge his deception. Nor did she challenge his other conceit, which suggested that flaws and discrepancies about the rate of change within a mountain of solid data, do not invalidate the overall mountain of data. The designated flunky knew her place.

- snip -

Flunky number two, Juan Williams, was set up to be slapped down by Kristol's lying:

- snip -

Those are the ground rules. It doesn't matter what honest people, like Phil Jones, may say. The liars will always edit their words to change the meaning and smear the innocent. And on Fox News the liars always have the last word.

- snip -

CAVUTO: All right, well, the president pushing green jobs, as we have been saying, even as a top climate scientist is raising some big doubts about it -- Phil Jones now admitting that there has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years. Now, it's the reason why three big companies, ConocoPhillips, B.P., and Caterpillar, are pulling out of a major climate partnership and why Donald Trump is urging something else be pulled, Al Gore's Nobel Prize.
He joins us now on the phone for this exclusive chat. First off, on these companies pulling out of this, maybe they're catching on to something you had warned about. What do you make of this?

TRUMP: Well, I don't blame them. They probably see the e-mail that was sent a couple of months ago by one of the leaders of global warming, the initiative, and almost saying -- I guess they're saying it's a con.

And they see things like that. They see the fact that, in Washington, where I'm building a big development, nobody can move, because we have 48 inches of snow, and the snow is not melting because it's so cold. And, in New York, we have had the coldest winter on record.

And all over Europe -- by the way, I have friends in Europe -- they're are freezing. It's so cold. It's never been colder.

(LAUGHTER)

I watched as one of the big representatives from China was talking about global warming, and I know that, underneath, he's laughing, because I know a lot of people, a lot of entrepreneurs and businesspeople from China, they laugh at our stupidity as a country.

[Chemisse]

1. I am baffled

What on earth does climate change vs global warming have to do with this?

Environmental issues - particularly global warming - are usually the top concern I have when I cast a vote. I care deeply about the fate of our planet and want nothing more than to replace fossil fuel consumption with clean energy.

I read that 'climate change' was being used as a term by the Obama administration and I mentioned that here on DU. I suspect it was chosen to pacify the deniers who can't see past the snow outside their windows.

Frankly, I never look at the Republican web sites and I am not familiar with their talking points. I don't feel I need to be. Some people seem to need to see them so they can be sure to take the opposite stand. I prefer to think independently.

To not talk about something because maybe a republican is saying it too, is silly and mindless.

[bridgit]

2. Not nearly as much as the changes to weather patterns either one is capable of effecting

I think that's where the issue was lost - it was allowed to be bickered away between climate change & global warming without pointing to any rubber that meets any road and poof it was gone. Intel tracks weather patterns as a way to understand stresses like climate change induced famine, rain fall & drought upon struggling regions of the world able to destabilize geo politic http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0222-01.htm

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. I think the OP is about comments like the one above yours

'Climate change' is what was exchanged for 'global warming' when scientists and green energy moguls realized that their doomsday scenario wasn't going the way they planned. People rarely scrap a term that has real value.

That's a silly comment. The IPCC has "climate change" in the name (obviously), nothing to do with failed doomsday scenarios. IPCC sometimes refers to "global warming" when it is talking about... global warming, which is one aspect of climate change.

As for which phrase is better to use in general, shrug. You may be right about Obama's rationale; I don't know.

[Chemisse]

8. I don't know either, but it would be in character from what we have seen

Obama likes to smooth out differences and seems willing to concede a lot to make that happen.

[Hissyspit]

4. Nowhere in my post does it say to not talk about something because maybe a Republican is saying it

it too.

There is no evidence that the term climate change is being used by the Obama administration to "pacify" deniers. The terms are non-equivalent and not interchangable specifically, but are used that way GENERALLY. It seems to me that the administration is trying to be CLEAR on what they are talking about. There is one sentence in my OP that states the relationship between the terminologies, and maybe even there not very well. Republicans DELIBERATELY play up the confusion. It sounds to me like you were just curious about the issue and not stating it as FACT, as others here have done. And the OP is not just about THAT particular talking point, but all the others, as well.

I do want to assure you that I was not referring to the posts that you had made in another thread, Chemisse. My OP was not intended as a response to any other threads or to particular DUers, but to a growing trend of comments on this website. I tried to carefully word my OP to make this clear. Apologies if I fell short. This is an unusual post for me, as I am not interested in playing 'net nanny,' I am interested in getting at and helping others get at truth, but the fact of the matter is that it is going to blur when taking part in an Internet discussion forum.

[Chemisse]

7. You are very gracious.

It is truly horrendous how global warming has become something to 'believe in', or not.

Anything you write that increases awareness about the disaster that is already happening in slow motion all around the world, is good by me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. But it would be good for some DUers to realise the origin of the talking points they use

because we have long experience of right-wingers lying to us.

A few DUers seem to hold to the equivalent of 'teach the controversy' on climate change - if they can find an opinion somewhere on the net, they'll repeat it here as if it's an honest, scientifically valid one, though it may come from a right wing, non-scientific source that is known to regularly lie when it suits them. Since there are people who are paid by oil and coal companies to lie and mislead on this subject in articles, and more who take a general "corporations are always right, anyone from a university is always wrong" approach, one has to look critically at the true sources of claims, and evaluate their trustworthiness.

Thus people ought to know that the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph are both right wing British newspapers; while the Telegraph keeps it's straight reporting more or less truthful, and it's just the opinion pieces in it that distort and lie (like, say, George Will in the Washington Post), the Mail will simply lie in its 'news' stories when it wants to.

There's an order of reliability and honesty on scientific matters, which holds most of the time:

Scientists <-------- most reliable
Left wing sources
Right wing sources <--------- least reliable



The most extreme case of climate change denial I've seen on DU using right wing sources was someone who tried to show that global warming had been disproved by linking to: World Net Daily, Senator Inhofe's web site, and the Stormfront neonazi website. Unsurprisingly, that last link got their reply deleted (DU mods will never allow a link to a hate site unless it's absolutely central to a news story and clearly marked as an offensive hate site), but they reposted still claiming World Net Daily and Inhofe as worthwhile sources. And more DUers just repeat things they've read on some blog, which then turns out to have originated from a right wing source.

[Hissyspit]

6. This quote was left out of the excerpt box inadvertently:

"I watched as one of the big representatives from China was talking about global warming, and I know that, underneath, he's laughing, because I know a lot of people, a lot of entrepreneurs and businesspeople from China, they laugh at our stupidity as a country."

It should be attributed to that dumbass Donald Trump, and not to David Fiderer, the Huffington Post blogger.