@"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." and you people think that you can think for yourselves?
Sometimes a cigar IS a phallic symbol, twit!
Ha! Ha! We know this fellow is smoking AstroTurf.
Liberals always rewrite history and accuse decent people of exactly what they themselves are doing. Who would waste their time reading garbage like that? Only an intellectually challenged person.
If that is the best the 'saviors of the earth' can do, they need a new ghost writer. I could do better than that. Ha! Ha!
One of the most effective tools of propaganda is to create a controversy where none exists and to continually play that tune in the media until there is no doubt in the public opinion of a battle between good and evil or the learned and the dupes. There really is no controversy about so called global warming. The science deliberately avoided in the mainstream media is very well understood. The sun and its natural cycles. The ocean currents and their natural cycles, the real co2 record. That we are coming out of a cooling period. Why don't you troll around and come up with some commentaries on those questions. And then ask yourself why no warmers are doing debates.
The Troll is the writer of that article. Astoturffing was started by liberals in the 60s . Warmons think the world was created in 2008 . Climate or weather did not happen before then .
Thats why the graphs are lacking and computer models
false .
The article makes a few good points but is long on snap judgments and short on done homework.
1. "Astroturfing" in connection with denial of climate change science was coined LONG before the internut age so-called Tea Party first started ignorantly insulting America's founding fathers. The phenomenon itself is older still.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._M...
2. There many different shades of climate change denial, (from Billy the Hollow Moon Reptilian to Richard Lindzen), not just the two troll types the author appears to have encountered.
3. In his haste and sloppiness, the author has thrown himself head-first into one of the most outrageously deceptive traps of the anti-science movement to deny the reality and seriousness of AGW: that there are are some "genuine skeptics" out there somewhere with whom "warmists" could have a "very productive" debate if only "trolls" would stand aside or could be circumnavigated.
As any of the regular non-deniers here on YA could tell you (though most are not climate scientists) and as you are no doubt well aware yourself:
(a) There are NO "genuine skeptics" of the more century-old science showing that species of life across our planet have evolved over many millions of generations.
(b) There are NO "genuine skeptics" of the reality of the Apollo program landing multiple times on the moon.
(c) There are NO "genuine skeptics" of the reality the millions of non-combatants were deliberately killed in cold blood by the Nazis because of their ethnicity, parentage, religion, etc.
(d) There are NO "genuine skeptics" arguing that the earth is not a sphere.
(e) There are NO "genuine skeptics" of 25 year-old conclusions of the IPCC (and every major scientific academy, leading scientific journal, and top university) concerning climate change:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
Nothing personal, but that linked-to article is counterproductive because it unwittingly helps deniers obfuscate by use of BS words such as "skeptics" and "warmists." The only "skeptics" of significance were the scientists studying climate change from the 1890s to the 1970s (before many of the "trolls" talked about in this article were even old enough to flunk science classes). The only "warmists" of significance are companies hoping to drill for minerals as ice caps melt.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
Finally one more point. You would be well advised to read up more on astroturfing yourself, before throwing the word around. There is a galactic difference between slick professional astroturf organizations such as Marshall and Heartland on the one hand, and their 8th level nitwit clown copy-cats here at YA, on the other.
I'm paid by Greenpeace to disrupt the climate conversation and thus legitimize their existence. I'm also paid by 42 different US and Canadian conservative think tanks doing the same thing. Life is good and that's why I can maintain my cool in a place like this.
It helps that my dad is friends with Stephen Harper. I'm also David Suzuki's gardiner on weekends. My affair with Andrea Horwath is over now though.
"Such synthetic grass was first cultivated in the US by the Tea Party, which would bankroll the hiring of flash-mob protesters and the swarming of news sites with the intention of drowning out discussion, and replacing it with a Tea Party ideology."
Is that supposed to have a ounce of truth to it? No wonder you are so confused. They are confusing the tea party with various leftist groups or was that the joke?
Mae, I emailed Charles as soon as this question appeared and told him of its importance.
We will be getting twice the usual rate for this one.
Enjoy!
I'm sure that people like Sagebrush don't believe what they are saying.
It's getting cooler.
There. I just made a thousand bucks from my buddies, Charles and David.
It's clear that the global warming section here has been astroturfed. But after reading this article about how the climate skeptic 'turfers operate:
https://theconversation.com/astroturfing-the-climate-wars-five-ways-to-spot-a-troll-19011
Sooner or later, one of them will say something like: "No, this is what the warmists/alarmists/theyneedtocomeupwithagoodnamebut aren'tcreativeneoughtodothat do all the time. We Skeptics always ask thoughtful, well-reasoned questions and defend our arguments."
Who will it be? Which one will take the bait?
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Sigmund Freud
Sometimes a climate is just climate. - AGW climate change skeptic
Apparently it's you.
