Pat Kenny's Climate Change Denial

by Shocked Tue Dec 08, 2009 01:53

a stacked audience of deranged religious nutcases letting the church off softly. sickening. one or two voices of sanity drowned out by the ravings of the religious. very surreal. very frightening that people still believe such nonsense to the degree that they will forgive paedophilia in this day and age. If they can do that then it's no stretch that they can ignore science and rational discourse in other realms.

by Bazooka Joe Wed Dec 09, 2009 21:13

Pat Kenny did not take sides. He simply pointed out some facts such as the fact that Gibbons was not responding to any of Professor Plimers arguments that climate change is a scam but was instead engaging in attempted character assasination and flaming. Gibbons admitted he hadn't even read Plimers book and had reviewed it for the Irish Times on the basis of a review written by another climate change apostle review! Kenny would have been inept not to point of how unprofessional that was.

Professor Plimer said that as a geologist he could see evidence in the earths history of continual huge rapid climate change for many thousands of years. He said that based on the deposit of limestone or chalk in the past we could work out the amount of CO2 in the athmosphere. He said that over time the athmospheric CO2 content has decreased from about 30% to about .0385% today.

Professor Plimer therefore refuted the allegation that he was a 'Climate Change Denier' since he fully accepts climate change. He did however dispute the fact that this present climate change is in any substantial way due to CO2 generated by humans. The use of the word 'denier' to somehow brand people who dissent from the theory of manmade climate change and somehow link them with Holocaust deniers is very slimy. It is typical of the unscientific methods being used by apostles of manmade climate change like John Gibbons and the Irish Times.

Pat Kenny had Professor Plimer clarify that only 3% of all the CO2 entering the athmosphere comes form mankind. Professor Plimer said this was true and in fact there have been periods of cooling when there was an increase in CO2. Plimer pointed out that the IPCC had been established with a preordained conclusion i.e. climate change was due to manmade CO2 emission and as such was political and not scientific.

All Kenny said was that, as such, it was an acedemic conspiracy where all the people who published 'evidence' of manmade global warming were peer reviewing each other and that from the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia some of this 'evidence' was falsified and other genuine evidence that did not fit the preordained conclusion was hidden. We know this to be a fact and indeed Phil Jones, the head of the CRU at East Anglia had to resign over his behaviour of falsifying data, hiding other and destroying other.

Professor Plimer said the carry on at the University of East Anglia was fraud and that if you commit fraud to get your argument accepted then your science must be extremely weak.

Gibbons did not address any of these arguments but instead started to sneer and abuse the reputation of Plimer. All the comments except one to Today with Pat Kenny pointed this out.

I would indeed encourage people to lisen to the programme and judge for themselves. This moron Gibbons is so typical ot the manmade climate change gang it is indeed worth seeing how they react when they are confronted with the science.

Pat Kenny was quite fair in this instance. Gibbons started the attack on Kenny when Kenny refused to join in with the 'Climate Change' hoax. You 'Plebean' and continuing to attack facts with insults and 'Denier' titles. I know the manmade 'Climate Change' gang don't have genuine facts and I look forward to seeing their shoddy science being fully discredited. We will not goose step along with their gang and they and all their apostles and apologists will be exposed for the frauds they are.

Why is nobody talking about how the leaked emails from the CRU and other independent sources show the temperature of the earth stopped rising around 1980 and has in fact been falling since 2000?

Climate Change has always been with us

by Bazooka Joe Wed Dec 09, 2009 22:58

Comments by listeners re Professor Plimer v. Gibbons on Today with Pat Kenny Thursday 3rd Dec 2009

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-021209-30m14s-...y.mp3

"Just wanted to say thank you for presenting a fair and balanced view of the debate on climate change. It is a welcome relief to hear someone try to present something other than the current orthodox view. Mr Gibbons came across like a member of the Spanish Inquisition shouting ‘burn the heretic’ at both you and Professor Plimer for daring to challenge his view of the world. I’m not a scientist but I do know the difference between opinions, facts and beliefs. The arrogance of Mr Gibbons shows his complete lack of understanding of the meaning of scientific method. Whether Professor Plimer is correct or not is beside the point. He is a scientist and he has put his work out there for review. If there is a problem with it, it will be exposed by science. Mr Gibbons is a journalist and not a scientist; he has neither the skills nor the competence to review the content of Professor Plimers book, even if he took the time to read it." – From Mike O’Donoghue

"Please accept my heartfelt congratulations on your decision to invite Professor Plimer and John Gibbons to contribute to your show. It’s hard enough to get a debate going as pretty much everyone I know has absorbed and accepted without question the idea that human carbon emissions are causing global warming. One particularly malignant element of the propaganda is the propagation of the idea that the scientific debate is over and that to continue to debate the science is immoral. Indeed our own Green Party ministers are on record as suggesting that scientific debate should be suppressed due to the ‘seriousness of the situation’. Your item with Plimer and Gibbons was a remarkable and rare hosting of a debate on the subject. I was thrilled to know that many thousand of your listeners were exposed, perhaps for the very first time, to the concept that the science is not settled and that there is an active and increasing debate going on in the scientific community. Thanks to Mr Gibbon’s performance they will also have witnessed the depth to which manmade climate change proponents will plummet to defend their position. - From Stephen Lane, Dunboyne.

I am a geologist of 45 years standing, actually a palaeontologist by speciality and I also studied climatology at University, so I think I can exempt myself from the class of non-experts. It seems to me that a number of climate scientists, environmental activists, journalists and other have devoted their careers to supporting the theory of catastrophic global warming. They have a lot to lose if the theory which they have embraced turns out to be wrong or not as important as they think. The same observation can be made with more certainty in respect of those politicians, especially Al Gore, Barak Obama, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown etc and even that now well know climate scientist Mary Robinson, who have climbed aboard the climate catastrophe bandwagon. This makes me all the more sceptical of their claims when there is not clear evidence to back them up. I wouldn’t give two hoots about the ‘anthropogenic global warming theory’ if it wasn’t being used to justify the introduction of foolish and extremely costly legislation which will bring about virtually no discernable temperature change. In any case, most of the independent research reveals that a slightly warmer world, with a higher CO2 content in the atmosphere, that is mostly a natural phenomenon, will not be a dangerous place to life, indeed it would most likely be beneficial to it and to mankind. I’m appalled that any reasoned questioning of the anti global warming theory is now being regarded as some sort of religious sacrilege or heresy by those in our society who have proclaimed themselves to be the saviours of the planet. Their attitude breeds and intolerance of dissent and reasoned argument based on observed conditions that is unattractive and dangerous and strongly reminiscent of the behaviour of the Catholic Church over the centuries. To dismiss the considered views of an eminent and responsible scientist solely on the grounds that his views one disagrees with seems to me one example of the attitudinal blockers preventing balanced debate to arrive at a policy response which is actually attuned to the reality and the magnitude of a perceived problem.
-From David Whitehead

These comments from Today with Pat Kenny of Thursday 3rd Dec 2009 are available until Tomorrow evening Thursday 10th Dec 2009 under ‘Shows from the past week’ here (at about 45mins)

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

by Mark C Wed Dec 09, 2009 23:25

I'm with Bazooka Joe on this one. Gibbons had, basically, an ad hominem against Plimer from the get go, basing his 'critique' on a review that someone else had written who, in turn, allegedly, had only read 25 pages of the book.

Gibbons came across as a most arrogant, self-righteous man, with not concept of engaging with the statements of Plimer.

by Plebian Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:21

@Bazooka Joe

"Pat Kenny did not take sides....He did however dispute the fact that this present climate change is in any substantial way due to CO2 generated by humans. "

Kenny's bias is quite clear. I suggest people listen to the "debate" and keep in mind the long list of deniers Kenny has provided a platform to. Furthermore the next day, Kenny had the temerity to suggest Gibbons did not receive one positive comment. This is clearly incorrect and I can vouch for that. His peformance on Friday followed in the same line.

Gibbons was fully aware of the "debate" between Monbiot and Plimer, where Plimer consistently refused to answer the most basic of questions. Arguing with Plimer is like arguing with someone denying the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Finally the term "denier" is used in relation to anthropogenic climate change not in terms of climate change as you well know.

As I posted above, for Plimer to be correct "would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. " not to mind atmospheric science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/200...icism

"Michael Ashley, professor of astrophysics at the University of NSW:

"Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken. " "

@ Shocked
Yeah that sounds like classic Kenny. I don't think it's done consciously, moreso Kenny is the typical and dominant media persona type within the mainstream media.

There are outliers of course, but in the main, we hear people who will not enter areas which run counter to elite interests.. . Either that or else they're very uncomfortable in doing so, treat them with contempt or do what the likes of Kenny consistently do.

Chomsky's market and power analysis of the media (the propaganda model) is still the best explanation of this sectoral behaviour.

A BBC interview where Chomsky describes Kenny's approach succinctly*

The Chomsky Marr Interview 1996

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4827358238697503#

review and transcript of
http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles....html

"The fact is that they are deceitful with no wish to deceive, not like
Machiavellians, but with no consciousness of their deceit, and usually
with the naiive assurance that they are doing something excellent and
elevated, a view in which they are persistently encouraged by the
sympathy and approval of all who surround them." (Tolstoy, On Civil
Disobedience and Non-Violence)

*
transcript
http://www.aithne.net/index.php?e=news&id=4&lang=0

"
Marr: How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are...

Chomsky: I don’t say you’re self-censoring - I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying; but what I’m saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting. "

by Robespierre Thu Dec 10, 2009 16:55

An interesting article from Physics Worldshows that the Climate change Deniers are totally out of touch.

Global warming resulting from slowly changing Earth systems could be up to 50% greater than previously thought, according to research by UK and US scientists. The study reinforces the notion that certain poorly understood systems such as ice sheets or vegetation are integral to accurately predicting future temperatures. It also paints an ever-bleaker outlook for our planet at a critical time when world leaders are gathering for a United Nations conference in Copenhagen to discuss practicable ways of mitigating climate change.

"If we want to build an agreement that is going to last for many, many centuries – so for our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren – then we need to be taking in these issues," lead author Dan Lunt of the University of Bristol told physicsworld.com.

by Robespierre Thu Dec 10, 2009 17:00

In the Philipines the Logging companies have armed private militias. But the resistance are armed as well. Here is a report of the New Peoples Army taking Direct Action against those companies which are desstroying the planet.

New People's Army Front 30 seized 13 automatic rifles consisting of two M14s, five Garands and six carbines on November 11 in a raid on the office of the Surigao Development Corporation (SUDECOR) in Barangay Pakwan, Lanuza, Surigao del Sur. The guerrillas conducted the disarming operation without firing a single shot.

After disarming the Special Civilian Armed Auxiliary (SCAA) and SUDECOR guards, the Red fighters confiscated seven chainsaws from the company. The peoples guerrillas also destroyed four bulldozers, two log yarders, a timber jack, a crane, two dumptrucks and a welding machine.

The objective of this punitive action was to put a stop to SUDECORs logging operations, said Ka Maria Malaya, National Democratic Front-Northeastern Mindanao Region (NDF-NEMR) spokesperson. She added that it was about time they ended the companys plunder and relentless destruction of the environment and people's livelihood.

The company uses bulldozer dragging, a method where bulldozers drag felled logs and destroy small trees in their path. The method likewise erodes the soil and contributes to the siltation of rivers. SUDECOR has thus been responsible for the rapid destruction of the environment and has been depriving the national minorities and settlers of their livelihood, said the NDF-NEMR spokesperson.

by Plebian Fri Dec 11, 2009 20:13

The BNP are outspoken deniers of climate change and in an unholy alliance, they are now forcefully emulating more mainstream denier fanatics in claiming that climate change was a leftwing conspiracy. Similar to "the same way as Lord Christopher Monckton has in his recent speeches in the United States." And, of course, Prof Ian Plimer has in Australia....and now Ireland

– That is, thanks to the presenter of one of the most popular radio shows here.

Here's a Guardian article on the resurgent far right wing assault on the scientific consensus, and the extremes that are gaining ground amongst the mainstream right and the neo-liberals.

Some extracts,

Climate change denial is the new article of faith for the far right
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/de...right
Despite a complete lack of evidence, the leaked emails hysteria has encouraged more deniers to emerge from the shadows


"....Perhaps unsurprisingly, the hysterical atmosphere created by the emails has encouraged more of the denial lobby to emerge from the shadows. The British National party leader, Nick Griffin, gave a speech in which he claimed that climate change was a leftwing conspiracy, in much the same way as Lord Christopher Monckton has in his recent speeches in the United States. Monckton and Prof Ian Plimer then helped the UK Independence party to launch its own declaration of climate change denial this week. Suddenly climate change denial has become a new article of faith among the far right.

Who knows where this will end. The denial lobby is determined to make this story drag on for as long as possible, and some are even claiming that it contributed to the failure of Australian climate change legislation this week and the ousting of the opposition leader. But when is all is said and done, the climate will still be changing and the risks will be mounting.
"