Updated date:

Failed Deception: A Brief History of Climate Change Denial

Dean Traylor is a freelance writer and teacher who writes about various subjects including education and creative writing.

failed-deception-a-brief-history-of-climate-change-denial

Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe has made a name for himself as a leading climate-change denier. If he's not throwing a snowball on the Senate floor to demonstrate his belief that global warming is not happening, he's putting forth "reports" claiming that more than a 1000 scientists support his belief. In many respects, he and his former assistant, Marc Morano have become the voice of denial on this matter.

Don't be fooled. Despite all the theatrics Senator Inhofe has brought to this issue, his attempt to expose anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a hoax -- perpetuated by climate scientists -- can't compare with the raw data collected and other hard evidence that support this harrowing situation.

Unfortunately, Inhofe is not alone. Others have attempted to turn science fact into fiction. And the list of attempts keeps growing. Climategate, the Oregon Petition, and US Minority Report are among the debates,"revelations", and findings released by climate-change deniers over the years. While many of these documents and claims can be debunked, there are so many proliferating the media. And, as a result, the populous that pays attention to it are buying into the arguments.

There’s no doubt an official investigation into AGW is needed. However, it’s not the scientists who need to be investigated, it’s the chief accusers. Many of these individuals and groups have used nefarious tactics, lies and distortion to sway public opinion on an important topic. And they’ve vilified the people who have had little stakes in what has become a political and ideological war.

The concept that human activity is causing environmental damage – in particular, changes to the climate – has been known for nearly a century. The evidence for it has been mounting for more than 40 years. Data collected from around world has suggested that the average temperature per year has risen since the data were first collected.

On top of that, very noticeable physical changes – those that even non-scientists have reported –have become apparent. Things such as seasonal flowers blooming earlier than expected; the reduction or retreat of glaciers in places far from the polar caps; reports of erratic and violent weather patterns; and the acidification of ocean waters beyond normal levels have raised alarms for this dire situation

Many denial groups have formed think tanks to search for ways to persuade public opinion against the belief in AGW. Their tactics are to bombard the media – including the Internet – with information geared to create doubt about the scientific evidence.

Scientists, policy makers, and advocacy groups have pushed for regulations – and in many cases elimination - of dangerous chemicals, fossil fuel emissions and other greenhouse gases that are believed to be responsible for AGW.

However - while the facts speak for themselves -there are those who are actively fighting any proposed laws to curb the use of these products. And, many of the tactics used have been absurd, dishonest, and possibly criminal.

Many denial groups have formed think tanks to search for ways to persuade public opinion against the belief in AGW. Their tactics are to bombard the media – including the Internet – with information geared to create doubt about the scientific evidence. The most popular tactic is to attack scientific consensus.

To date, more than 97 percent of all climate scientists around the world agree that human activity is affecting the rate of global warming. Also, scientific organizations with members outside of climate study have sided with them.

Still, the denialists ignore such facts and come up with their own. Many claim there are increasing numbers of scientists who disagree that global warming is either (1) man-made or (2) happening, at all.

While there are numerous reports from denial groups floating around the Internet, the harshest claims come from two reports and one conspiracy: The Oregon Petition, the “U.S. Senate Minority Report” (better known as “1000 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"), and Climategate. These deserve more scrutiny, for they shed some light on the deceptive history they are part of.

The Oregon Petition

Between 1999 and 2001 (and circulated again in late 2007 and early 2008) a curious petition made its round. Oregon Petition Project – also known as the Oregon Petition - purported to have nearly 31,000 signatures from “scientists” who disputed AGW. It was organized by the impressively named Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine(OISM), a non-profit organization headed by known global warming denialist, Author Robinson.

The petition was later debunked. It turned out that most of the “scientists” weren’t exactly scientists. The reply card (with a survey) was given to anyone who had an undergraduate degree in science. Also, a handful of real scientists who did sign it fell into three categories:

* They were retired,

* not involved in climate science, or

* were already associated with OISM.

Although debunked years ago, the petition is still circulated, and an active website from OISM still lists those that have signed it, as well as offering a copy of the new version of the petition.

failed-deception-a-brief-history-of-climate-change-denial
The old and new Oregon Petition

The old and new Oregon Petition

U.S. Senate Minority Report

Written by conservative writer Marc Morano and presented by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, this report has been revised numerous times since 2007. Each year, new names are added to a list purported to be of those who disagree with the concept of man-made global warming claims.

This list is impressive. There are a few Nobel Laureates on it. However, a closer examination reveals a few glaring problems. Some of the scientists on the list have either changed their position or simply disagreed with Kyoto Protocol (which was enough for them to be entered on the list). Many of them have asked to have their names removed from the list (which Morano has refused to do). Also, some “scientists” were not scientists such as the weatherman Chris Allen (who was made famous by a particular YouTube video). Allen claimed in his blog that only God could create climate change; therefore, according to him, AGW had to be a hoax.

Other signatories had membership in think tanks created by conservative groups and energy technology companies. Another segment of scientists had little or no background in climate or atmospheric science.

Climategate

Another tactic of the deniers can be considered criminal. Case in point is Climategate. This scandal is often referred to as the “smoking gun” among climate-change deniers. According to this group, e-mails exchanged between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, Penn State University and other campuses and facilities showed evidence of a cover-up to alter data to favor AGW.

When first reported in 2009, Climategate appeared to be damaging. Several conservative-leaning newspapers, libertarian blogs, and climate-change denial websites announced that the scandal finally exposed the “lie.”

In many respect it did. Soon after the scandal broke, questions surfaced on how the e-mails were leaked and what exactly was exchanged in the e-mails. It turns out that the e-mails were hacked by an unknown source, and then released onto a conservative blog.

When published, the e-mails were often edited or had some (not all) of its information posted to suggest wrongdoing on the part of the scientists.

Eventually, university officials, an Associated Press reporter, a committee within the British Parliament, and several independent investigators investigated the entire collection of e-mails.

They discovered:

1. The scientists involved in the matter were frustrated by constant requests for data from global warming skeptics.

2. Constant harassment from a London financial trader who claimed to have found "fakery" in a 1990 research paper by Climate Research Unit head Phil Jones.

3.The scientists had doubts about the quality of the several “climate denial” reports, including one that was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

4. Calls to avoid or ban publishing in a journal that published papers from known climate-change deniers such as Steve McIntyre.

Other findings revealed that the so-called scientific cover-up on the matter were unsubstantiated and were usually misinterpreted. One case, pointed out by FactCheck.Org, stated that denialists interpreted a phrase “hiding the decline” as referring to a decline in actual temperatures, despite a lack of evidence in the text to suggest this.

Finally...

Climategate, the Oregon Petition, and the U.S. Senate Minority Report are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to distortion of facts. However, these issues -- which can easily be debunked -- are being interpreted by too many people that believe them at face value.

As a result, the scientists who did their work are finding themselves under fire, while the real culprits – the numerous climate change deniers and organizations – use the media to spread their hoax to an unsuspecting audience.

This has to change.

Update 2016: CO2 and Questionable Websites

Since the republication of this article, several tactics have come to light. Some of these tactics came from denialists that had responded on one of three articles published on this topic.

One tactic is something I named "CO2 is good for trees!" At least two denialists (one on Twitter and another in the comment section of another article) brought this up. It felt like a last-gasp talking point to argue against those that believe that AGW is happening. It also appears to be based on a misunderstanding of real science. It is true that trees take in CO2; however, it doesn't clean up other toxins or chemicals that pollute the air. Also, it's an argument that can be contradictory; it leads one to believe that more trees and plants need to be planted and that one should be more concerned about the environmental damage caused by the destruction of rain forests around the world. It should also be noted that the reduction of the rain forest through tactics that involved massive controlled fires in the region has contributed to the current climate change crisis.

Another tactic involves popular websites using questionable blogs. Investor's Business Daily is a site usually featured in Yahoo News. As the name suggest, they are a business-oriented website and tend to be right-leaning in their approach. Lately, they've been publishing articles disputing the science presented by government agencies such as NASA, NOAA, and the United Nation's IPCC. The problem, however, is that this fairly mainstream site borrows heavily on questionable and misleading blogs such as Real Science to support their editorial arguments.

Real Science appears to be glossy and professional website that's appears to be dealing with science. But, looks are deceiving. The blog is dedicated is a climate change denial site. While the blog may contain swell looking graphs and charts, much of the articles are thinly veiled rants against "liberals and scientists" who have "ulterior motives" to push the climate change "hoax."

Update 2019: Pressure Group Behind "Carbon Dioxide is Good" Myth

As mentioned in a previous update, many climate change denialists have been using the mantra "Carbon Dioxide is good". It appears that this originated from a pressure group called CO2 is Green and its sister organization, Plants Need CO2


The group responsible for these two was founded by a former vice-chairman of an oil and gas company, and a chief executive officer for a coal resourcing corporation. The men and their 501 non-profit group are located in Houston, Texas.

Their tactic is to launch ad campaigns through newspapers and local TV programming in several states. Additionally, their website has a section that implores readers to contact their senators and/or congress (especially those on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works) to remove the classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In addition, the site promotes:

•The concept of Global Cooling

• The need for more carbon dioxide to be pumped into the air (for the sake of the trees).

Also, the carbon Dioxide myth has been perpetuated from a group called Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

Oregon Desert from National Geographic

Oregon Desert from National Geographic

This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.

© 2015 Dean Traylor

Comments

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on June 03, 2019:

A denier denying denialism....hmm, didnt see that one coming.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 03, 2019:

As they say, Robert, if the shoe fits ... The term denier, as in climate change denier is apt and exact description the group that argue against the obvious..

Robert Kernodle on June 03, 2019:

The one thing that sets off the author of this article as unconvincing is the use of the term, "denier".

Serious attempts to inform do not use such loaded, name-calling labels.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on June 03, 2019:

One other thing: if you are here looking for affirmation for your delusional concepts, look somewhere else. Go back and get that from James, Tsad, Will and the rest of the frightened little kitties and Kool aid drinkers. They'll take anything you shovel and call it "brilliant."

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on June 03, 2019:

You keep forgetting something. BRAD: thjs is my page and the one pestering is YOU. if you have a question, then get to the point, instead of posting a long diatribe that you probably cant answer yourself.

Brad on June 02, 2019:

Dean

You kept pestering me for a question that you should have read in my comment, and now you are accusing me of a trick.

The question goes unanswered and you and Scott are doing this diversion.

What is it that you are having a problem with here?

You know the question?

How can anyone take this hub and you guys serious when you make these kinds of comments?

Scott knows the question?

Answer the question, it is that simple.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on June 02, 2019:

Scott, I guess he's trying some kind of Jedi mind trick.

Brad on June 02, 2019:

Scott

Are you just being obtuse.

You are not answering this question.

:You keep avoiding the question, what is being done and what is being accomplished to solve AGW today, and in the near future?

I will help you out, nothing."

"Each time you ask what can be done, I will provide your the above resources."

B:

The problem with your comment is that I never asked what can be done, I asked what has been done, and what did it accomplish in solving AGW.

I even gave it to you in science terms on James hub.

The difference between potential and kinetic energy. And you keep giving your answer about potential energy.

"Here, I will repeat this list of suggestions on how to reduce global warming."

This was another wrong answer to my question.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 02, 2019:

Here, I will repeat this list of suggestions on how to reduce global warming.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-you-can-stop-glob...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/glo...

https://solarimpulse.com/global-warming-solutions

https://www.northwestern.edu/fm/fm-staff/10-ways-t...

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/sol...

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/stopglobalw...

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/stopglobalw...

Each time you ask what can be done, I will provide your the above resources.

Brad on June 02, 2019:

look in my comment for Scott

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on June 02, 2019:

In other words you dont have a question youre just trolling and pestering as usual?

Brad on June 02, 2019:

Another diversion

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on June 02, 2019:

Seriously what question? Youre known for demanding all to answer a non-question. Do you actually have legitimate question?

Brad on June 02, 2019:

Dean

Your diversion is not funny.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on June 02, 2019:

What question?

Brad on June 02, 2019:

Scott

You keep avoiding the question, what is being done and what is being accomplished to solve AGW today, and in the near future?

I will help you out, nothing.

and using averages is like using percent it doesn't mean much.

http://netnebraska.org/article/news/dust-bowl-memo...

The point is that they happened before, way before.

Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on June 02, 2019:

EF-1 TORNADO

OK, now we can get to the EF-1 tornadoes. While the previous analysis shows that the stronger tornadoes are decreasing in small numbers from 1950 through 1985 and remaining constant thereafter, the growth in EF-1 tornadoes more than makes up for that.

On average each year produces 3.8 more EF-1 tornadoes than the year before. Further, this data doesn't have the problem the previous ones did in that the high strong storm activity period from 1950 to 1985 is missing. While there does appear to some increased activity in the early 1970s, the upward trend in later years makes up for that.

Effectively, the growth of the number of EF-1 tornadoes has been constant and steady, year after year. Where 190 to 290 EF-1s per year use to be the norm, now 250 to 500 is. That is a massive growth in the frequency of EF-1 tornadoes.

The average number of EF-1 tornadoes over this 68 year period is 312.2 and the median is 314. Notice that previously the median was smaller than the average, indicating the higher frequency of tornadoes was in the earlier years (1950 - 1980), this flip indicates that the frequency is increasing as time moves on.

The smallest number of EF-1 tornadoes was 82 in 1952 and the max so far is 638 in 2011.

Also of note, one would expect that as the tornadoes get weaker, they would be more numerous. And if you compare EF-1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s, you will see that to be true. But in 1989, EF-1s became an anomaly when they began to outnumber EF-0s and haven't looked back.

So far in 2019 there have been 320 EF-1 tornadoes which exceeds the historic average. By the time the year is over, that average will have been smashed.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 27, 2019:

Really, Brad? You're going to go there? You say this with the type of "articles" you write?

Brad on March 27, 2019:

Dean

What article?

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 26, 2019:

Brad, if its not in my article then dont mention it.

Brad on March 26, 2019:

Dean

That is your response to everything.

What are you personally doing to for climate change? Nothing because it wasn't in your article's scope.

The world got hotter when the Mueller report came in, or did it. I know it wasn't in your article.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 12, 2019:

I have no clue what you are talking about. Just accept the fact, that you are taking my article out of context with a hokey question that has no bearing on the matter. End of story.

Brad on March 12, 2019:

Dean

The scope of the article. You are making all sorts of claims and that is the article. My point rebuffs your claims, and that couldn't be more in scope. If you want to put it into the fiction section, I am OK with that:)

I wrote 175 articles, and the hubscore Hp biased scores are less than 10% of them.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 12, 2019:

you don't have an argument. You're just pulling one out of the sky and spouting off a Gish Gallop of stuff that's been refuted and explained in the past. As mentioned, that's not the scope of the article was.

And, besides, why would I want to comment on articles in which you bemoan your hubscores?

Brad on March 12, 2019:

Dean

Why can't you have read the arguments, and respond to them with your arguments instead of your personal attacks and insults as you did in your last response?

I have 175 articles and you can comment on any of them.

But why can't you argue against these points?

"Then you article is meaningless because it needs a solution. But it doesn't need a solution if the problem isn't real. The mental gymnastics, isn't that what you are doing in your article, making circular arguments.

Life on the earth couldn't exist without carbon, we are a carbon based life form. And the Earth has been around for 4 and half billions years producing all sorts of various environments and it was still around 20,000 years ago what mankind popped up.

We call this nature, and nature has created some violent events like the ice age, volcanoes, Tsunami and its variations etc. The point is that the Earth has been able to right itself before man existed, and man can only make a bad environment worse.

There is global dimming from volcano ash, and there is global warming from I don't know, but the point is that they can neutralize each other.

There is also methane that has an effect on the environment.

With all of our super computers, and weather prediction programming we still get fooled by the weather. If you can't accurately predict the weather, that you certainly can't change it.

As for the thousands of scientist that support climate change, then you have to also agree with the thousand of scientist, engineers, architects that say the WTC couldn't have fallen at the speed of gravity from a plane crash."

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 11, 2019:

well, when you can actually write a meaningful article, then you can come back and tell me how "meaningless" this one was. Also, read up on the science rather than espousing the typical rhetoric and pseudoscience these group churn out.

Brad on March 11, 2019:

Then you article is meaningless because it needs a solution. But it doesn't need a solution if the problem isn't real. The mental gymnastics, isn't that what you are doing in your article, making circular arguments.

Life on the earth couldn't exist without carbon, we are a carbon based life form. And the Earth has been around for 4 and half billions years producing all sorts of various environments and it was still around 20,000 years ago what mankind popped up.

We call this nature, and nature has created some violent events like the ice age, volcanoes, Tsunami and its variations etc. The point is that the Earth has been able to right itself before man existed, and man can only make a bad environment worse.

There is global dimming from volcano ash, and there is global warming from I don't know, but the point is that they can neutralize each other.

There is also methane that has an effect on the environment.

With all of our super computers, and weather prediction programming we still get fooled by the weather. If you can't accurately predict the weather, that you certainly can't change it.

As for the thousands of scientist that support climate change, then you have to also agree with the thousand of scientist, engineers, architects that say the WTC couldn't have fallen at the speed of gravity from a plane crash.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 11, 2019:

sigh...that's not the intent of the article. It's meant to expose those propagating disinformation on this matter. Doing mental gymnastics to twist its meaning is not the way to do it.

Brad on March 11, 2019:

Dean

Without a solution it is just gas!

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 11, 2019:

The article is not about proposing a solution, but if it was, my first one is to get educated on the matter by learning to spot BS when it arises instead of repeating it because it affirms to your beliefs.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 11, 2019:

The article is not about proposing a solution, but if it was, my first one is to get educated on the matter by learning to spot BS when it arises instead of repeating it because it affirms to your beliefs.

Brad on March 11, 2019:

Explain your proposal for a solution. How does it work and how long will it take.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on March 11, 2019:

Another update: Apparently there's a pressure group touting the benefits of carbon dioxide and the "realization" that we're experiencing Global Cooling instead of warming.

As with many of these groups, they are founded by people in the oil and energy industries.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on December 12, 2018:

First off, one of the people you used in the article (about the sea rising) Dr. Molner has been known for doctoring data and being an avid supporter of dowsing -- the act of using hand-held rods to find sources of underground water. In fact, the group he started has been distancing themselves from him. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-...

Also, I don't get how having some scientists being part of several committees is going to prove some form of deception. Nearly every group dealing with science have members that belong to other committee (both public and private).

Also, in terms for the graph shown, I believe the person who responded to your article is on the mark. Part of the deceptive tactics is to use lots of graphs to make something appear to be scholarly or validated, even if the graph really don't give an accurate picture of what is really going on (also, data mining and cherry-picking has been a problem in the past).

Robert Kernodle on December 11, 2018:

Talk about "deceptive tactics".

The following might prove enlightening towards revealing such tactics on the part of those who profess climate catastrophe:

https://hubpages.com/politics/Fourth-National-Clim...

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on September 12, 2018:

No, you just ask bad questions

Brad on September 12, 2018:

Dean

You are a bad student, you couldn't answer one of my questions. Even the one that came directly from your article.

Your article is just fiction, no facts, and you can't even support your position.

Bye Deflector Dean!

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on September 12, 2018:

I said this once, and I'll say it again. Stay on target. This article is about the history of deceptive tactics used by climate change deniers. Deflecting from the topic, just so you can say someone is deflecting your question is off base.

We get it Brad; you are a rabid climate change denier and likes to debate others even if you are wrong. You're going to present cherry-picked data and give it some funky spin. And when somebody doesn't care to answer your supposed question (and yes, you're known for asking questions and attempting to shut people down for not answering the question the way you want it answered), you feel compelled to pound your chest and declare some form of victory. Nope, that's not how it works.

Let's be frank, I do my homework. That's how I can write these articles. I don't care if I offend someone's ideology in the process. I'm not here to pamper anyone or appeal to their confirmation bias.

If you're upset about it, write your own article. Do some research or whatever you do.

Brad on September 12, 2018:

Dean

I have noticed a number of my commenters comments being labeled Spam, and I couldn't find anything in it.

Thank you once again for condescension ( I am a bright 5 year old:))

Can you give me an example of temper?

And once again, you deflect, attack, and offer condescension instead of simply answering my questions. It takes the same amount of effort if you have an answer.

Here is another question, I heard it from sixth graders.

How does the Paris Accord deal with Climate Control? You don't even mention it, which raises another question. if you don't care about the Paris Accord for solving climate control, what is your solution?

BTW

"To date, more than 97 percent of all climate scientists around the world agree that human activity is affecting the rate of global warming. Also, scientific organizations with members outside of climate study have sided with them."

B:

Exactly how many scientist total 100%

We have a total world population

"The world population density is 55.7 people per square kilometer (144.2 per mi 2) as of September 2018. This number is calculated using 7,576,951,385 people as the world population and 136,120,354 km 2 (52,556,368 mi 2 )as Earth's total area"

The total number of these scientists is

Is it Greater than 1 million people.

Is it Greater than 500,000 people.

Is it Greater than 100,000 people

What is your number for it?

Thanks for correcting the spam.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on August 24, 2018:

Brad, a side note: Evidently, the powers-that-be on this site deemed your last comment to be spam and inappropriate. I allowed it anyway and prevented it from being tossed onto the sag heap of Internet history. However, I didn't do it out of the kindness of my heart. Instead, I felt it was more important to expose the type of inane thinking from wingnuts, loons and kooks I have to deal with when I write about such topics.

It's really sad that I have to put up with somebody writing like a 5-year-old having a temper tantrum.

My advice to you is take some time and learn how to write compelling, thought-provoking articles and comments instead of the rambling rants you often infest on this site. Better yet, you better think about why you're on this site in the first place.

After a while, the persecution complex act gets old (if it hasn't already). Even the enablers on this site that you converse with are not going to help you. If you want to continue with these rambling rants, then don't be surprised nobody will respond to it.

Now, excuse me while I drop this mike.

Brad on August 24, 2018:

Dean the Drive By Blah Blah Blah

"For someone who is not very knowledgeable about the subject "

B:

Really, why do you say that?

---------------------------------

presented you sure have the galls to call me or anyone out on the matter.

B:

Did I do that?

-----------------

Also, who are you to demand a question or get upset that I didn't read your comment?

B:

I am not upset? I don't think I demanded anything?

------------------------

As I've mentioned before, you're comments are convoluted.

B:

You say lots of things, but you never make a specific reference, or make a single comment on what if anything is wrong about my comments.

Saying they are convoluted, is inaccurate, vague, ambiguous, without reference, and meaningless.

-----------------------------------

Then again, chaos is what you're about.

B:

Can you prove it? NO!

--------------------------------

You just don't like anyone going against your ideology and don't have the ability to accept criticism of those beliefs.

B:

When did you comment, and your criticism wasn't about my comments on the issue, just deflections away from you having any real comment on them.

------------------------

You say you like to debate, but it's under your rules

B:

What rules are they?

-------------------------

. Sorry, not going to happen.

B:

I guess you are right because it hasn't happened yet.

--------------------------

You can do all the name calling you can.

B:

Driveby Dean Blah Blah Blah

-------------------------

But, that's the coward's way...even if you were the one to draw first blood.

B:

You don't make any sense with that statement, I have no idea what it means!

--------------------------

So go deflect that and come up with more nickname that fit your true self. Deflector is a start, what's next?"

B:

I know you are an expert in education as you write about it in your hubs, but does that statement really mean anything?

I am not the one deflecting.

What would you like me to call you?

-----------------------------

Here is an example from some comments

"Dean

The question is really easy,

"Just because we have created it,

doesn't mean that we can stop it,

and certainly not reverse it."

And this is your answer!

:)

Dean Traylor profile imageAUTHOR

Comprehending the first 100 pages of Finnagans wake is a lot easier than deciphering your questions. I dont even think you know what you are asking."

B:

Why was my question so difficult?

Just because we have created it,

B: I said assume that Climate Change is real and according to your article We the humans created it!

next, I said, doesn't mean that we can stop it,

B: You could answer this with a way that we can stop it? I don't know what that way would be, so I asked you.

---------------------------------------

Next I said, and certainly not reverse it.

B:

At this point, you could agree with that statement, submit a way that we could reverse climate control.

---------------------------------

That is all I was asking the author of this pro climate control hub.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on August 24, 2018:

For someone who is not very knowledgeable about the subject presented you sure have the galls to call me or anyone out on the matter. Also, who are you to demand a question or get upset that I didn't read your comment? As I've mentioned before, you're comments are convoluted.

Then again, chaos is what you're about. You just don't like anyone going against your ideology and don't have the ability to accept criticism of those beliefs.

You say you like to debate, but it's under your rules. Sorry, not going to happen. You can do all the name calling you can. But, that's the coward's way...even if you were the one to draw first blood. So go deflect that and come up with more nickname that fit your true self. Deflector is a start, what's next?

Brad on August 24, 2018:

Dean the Deflector

Yes, but the real question is do you:)

"There’s no doubt an official investigation into AGW is needed. However, it’s not the scientists who need to be investigated, it’s the chief accusers. Many of these individuals and groups have used nefarious tactics, lies and distortion to sway public opinion on an important topic. And they’ve vilified the people who have had little stakes in what has become a political and ideological war."

You are pro climate change as indicated by the snippet above.

as well as the following

"Update 2016: CO2 and Questionable Websites

Since the republication of this article, several tactics have come to light. Some of these tactics came from denialists that had responded on one of three articles published on this topic. "

B:

My comments question your pro climate change.

----------------------------------------------------------

B: My comment

"B:

For example

"My question is that assuming for argument, let us say it climate change is real. Just because we have created it, doesn't mean that we can stop it, and certainly not reverse it."

-----------------------------------------

What do you think your article is about

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on August 24, 2018:

Do you even know what the article is about?

Brad on August 24, 2018:

Dean

Deflection is your middle name. The question is really easy,

"Just because we have created it,

doesn't mean that we can stop it,

and certainly not reverse it."

I am sorry, I am going to have to grade your response as F-. You would have gotten even a lower grade, but you did spell your name correctly.

:)

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on August 24, 2018:

Comprehending the first 100 pages of Finnagans wake is a lot easier than deciphering your questions. I dont even think you know what you are asking.

Brad on August 24, 2018:

Dean

"And i told you why i did it, so dont play ignorant about it. And no, you didnt do a thoughtful comment. Its the usual butchering you love to do. Maybe youve cried wolf one too many times."

B:

Again, did you read my comments, I asked some valid questions. And as you always do is deflect, bad mouth, and drive byyyyyyyyyyyyy:)

------------------------------

B:

For example

"My question is that assuming for argument, let us say it climate change is real. Just because we have created it, doesn't mean that we can stop it, and certainly not reverse it."

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on August 23, 2018:

And i told you why i did it, so dont play ignorant about it. And no, you didnt do a thoughtful comment. Its the usual butchering you love to do. Maybe youve cried wolf one too many times.

Brad on August 23, 2018:

Dean

Did you actually read my comment.

You took one paragraph, and wrote book, and that paragraph was an aside, not the focus.

I tried to take your article seriously, and I gave a well thought out comment. And you just ignored it.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on August 23, 2018:

Brad, you must have been a cherry picker in your younger days, because you seem to be really good at cherry picking data. Once again, you pulled off a Gish Gallop to go with those cherries. So I'll ignore most of your distortion of facts, and just focus on one item that you brought up.

I was born and raised in the Los Angeles area. The same goes for my dad. Ive heard the story that the indigenous people supposedly called this area the smokey valley. Ive heard the same thing mentioned for the san fernando valley, san Joaquin, valleys in Arizona, Utah, and Texas. I find it odd that these names eminated about a decade ago and that theres no evidence to back these claim. I suspect it may be an urban myth.

If there is any truth to it, id say it had to with another natural phenomenon, ocean haze that was trapped by the mountains and blown inland by the persistent sea breeze. Also, wild fires may have been a factor as well as numerous camp fire from tribes in the region.

Still air quality in the last century....when the region exploded in population, has been a human made problem. As my dad can attest to this, the air quality was bad when much of the region was rural. He used to state that he could see the thick black smoke covering the skies above orange county's orange groves. It was from smelting pots meant to protect oranges from the winter frost (when was the last you woke up to morning frost in the OC). He saw this from his farm in ..... Gardena. Of course there were other factors. Afterall, LA was home to a lot of industry.

Air quality was so bad in the 70s that i remember having sig alerts while in elementary school, in which we had to stay in our classroom during recess.

Of course im probably spinning my wheels with you.you're just a denialist living in your bubble where facts are meant to fit your ideological views. Thats probably why the shams i mentioned this article are being used by climate change denialists throughout the world.

Brad on August 23, 2018:

Dean

B:

I don't see any real facts here, let me say why.

-------------------

"To date, more than 97 percent of all climate scientists around the world

B:

I have tried to google this and don't come up with a number, 97% of X. How many people is that?

Next question, what are the credentials of a "climate scientist?"

What is the culprit? is it CO2 or Methane, or some combination including other factors?

-------------------------

agree that human activity is affecting the rate of global warming. Also, scientific organizations with members outside of climate study have sided with them.

B:

What is human activity?

Nature does a lot of things itself, and after billions of years we are still here. Before man we had volcanoes, whose ash could produce global dimming, we have had fires around the world that create smoke and chemicals into the air.

Los Angeles had air pollution when the Indians were here. Air pollution seems to be part of nature. Of course, man has created and detonated nuclear explosions, surely not helping the environment. But they were limited and temporary.

We have aircraft in the skies for 100 years, from gasoline, to diesel from ground level to over 60,000 feet.

None of that will be impacted by the Paris Accord.

And air pollution won't stop from the accord, it will just shift from America to third world countries.

----------------------------------

Still, the denialists ignore such facts and come up with their own. Many claim there are increasing numbers of scientists who disagree that global warming is either (1) man-made or (2) happening, at all."

B:

My question is that assuming for argument, let us say it climate change is real. Just because we have created it, doesn't mean that we can stop it, and certainly not reverse it.

Around the world traffic gridlock is worsening not abating. We can't fix traffic gridlock, then what are the chances we can fix climate change. We are pretty good at making things worse, but not very good at fixing things.

One of the things that humans have done for the last one hundred years is be in wars. And how environmentally clean is a war?

Anyway, this should be enough comment to start.

:)

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on February 17, 2016:

No more on the Agenda 21, please. In fact, enough with the "big lie" I'm done with that, the illuminati cabal, bible codes or whatever. I'm not into "alternative" thinking or conspiracy "theories". This article is about deception from deniers. 'nuff said.

Gunny Cracker from Elkhorn, WI on February 17, 2016:

Global-warming is the biggest lie since evolution. This is all one big facade to get the United Nations to impose a global-footprint tax on the entire planet. It will be here very soon. They will undermine and nullify the sovereignty of every nation. And per Henry Kissinger there will be an RFID veri-chip, patented as "Digital Angel", implanted on every human being on earth by 2017. SEE Agenda-21 & Project 2030!

John Hansen from Queensland Australia on February 10, 2016:

I am in 100% agreement with your facts and arguments in this article Dean. I really can't say much more. I am already tired of arguing the truths of climate change myself on my own hubs, but you have done an excellent job.

Dean Traylor (author) from Southern California/Spokane, Washington (long story) on November 08, 2015:

I knew when I published this article I'd get comments like this; however, I'm not sure where to begin with the response. I'm still wrapping my mind around the conspiracy presented here (Climate Scientists lied in order fulfill Agenda 21? Really?) As I mentioned, the topic of climate change has been taken out of the realm of rationality and into political rhetoric and ideology. And how the climategate thing went down was a huge example of that. Do you realize that some of the stuff you mentioned I "obviously" missed were either embellished, taken out of context, or fabricated by the hackers and the blogs that first published them? Do you realize that all this was investigated by the British Government and was basically dismissed (with some people calling the accusation against the scientists dishonest and misconstrued). The only criticism that went against the scientists was for what they called certain people. However, they were not mocking them; they were expressing their frustration with certain people who were constantly protesting or blocking their research. And to be frank, if I had corporate shills, ideologists, and deniers obstructing my research or trying to ruin my life, I'd have a few choice words for them, too.

Now for the personal attacks: first off, I'm a skeptic of a lot of things. Not a denialist. My blinders have been off for a long time and I do a lot of research (and not relegated to some person's blog who's only aim is to affirm bias rather than dispense information). Most importantly, I can't stand conspiracy "theories" of any kind. People who succumb to this nonsense are biggest sheeples around. Oddly enough, they like to take pot shot at those of us who can think clearly and see thing for what they are. And, finally, sorry I'm not going to address the Agenda 21 or that these scientist are lying to get grant money (never could understand that, considering that grant money has a specific purpose to fund stuff rather than make the scientist filthy rich).

The Daily Conservative from Phoenix, AZ on November 07, 2015:

Obviously you missed the emails that were hacked on two separate occasions that show Climate scientist's mocking people for being so stupid and naive for believing the government about global warming. They even go so far to call Al Gore their "snake oil salesman". The fact is that these scientist's were the same ones bought and paid for by the United Nations who were worked for the International Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC). They were caught red handed in email communications saying that it was all a big hoax. You're a smart guy. Do some research and look it up. The reason why they would make all this up? Agenda 21. Like I said, do some real research and stop thinking everything you don't understand or are too afraid to understand is a conspiracy theory. The truth is right in front of you. Take off the blinders. I will warn you though, once you start uncovering the truth of things, it's hard to really ever be content again. You can have truth or you can have happiness. You can't have both.