Political Discussions
Climate Cover Up: The crusade to deny global warming
Posted by timethief • 10/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: book, climate change, cover-up, desmogblog, expose, global warming
Last week DeSmogBlog’s highly anticipated book, Climate Cover Up: the crusade to deny global warming, went on sale on Friday. It's available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble or Chapters Indigo. I haven't got a copy but I'm on a waiting list to read my friend's. Will you be reading it?
- Here's what some people are saying about the book:
Actor and Producer, Leonardo DiCaprio hails the book as “an imperative read for a successful future.”
NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen calls Climate Cover Up “an expose of planetary scale.”
Plan B 3.0 Author Lester Brown describes the book as “A clear and courageous battle cry against those who, for profit’s sake, would lead us to environmental and, ultimately, economic ruin.”
Renowed Environmentalist David Suzuki says "Climate Cover-Up documents one of the most disgusting stories ever hidden about corporate disinformation. What you’ll discover in this book amounts to proof of an inter-generational crime.”
Actress and Producer Neve Campbell says “To those of us who have been unknowingly made to turn a blind eye to the terrifying and true facts about global warming, there’s no time left for ignorance. Please read this shocking and incredible book, learn how we’ve been manipulated, get angry and take action.”
User Comments
-
Sounds like fear mongering to me. -
Although I'm not convinced climate change is not happening, I would just like to play devils advocate for a minute and point out that world renowned scientific college that secured the Nobel Prize for Chemistry a few years ago (Nagoya University) in Japan had a panel of their scientists look at climate change and came to the conclusion that it was not happening, and in fact, the computer models used to show it have been inaccurate since 1998.-
Can't find the research that you mention. However can find the course that University teaches on Climate Change www.envleaders.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/program/curriculum/syllabus/Climate-Chang...
They basis of the course is that climate change absolutely is happening. -
Weird. Thanks for checking. I was too lazy to do it myself (usually am.)
-
-
I haven't read it as it's not really my type of reading. However, if it is something meant to strike some fear, it may be that sometimes it is necessary to do that to provoke a reaction that will cause people to step up and do something? You see it in so many movies - people won't do anything until they're forced to take drastic steps to save themselves.-
True, but it doesn't always make for the best science. I've heard fairly persuasive arguments on both sides and would like to see a REAL scientific discussion.
-
Then go to a real scientific board.
-
Good point, but right now I'm tired. In any case, even the worse case scenarios are not really quite as bad as some think. They wouldn't be fun - there would be more dangerous storms and we'd have to build 20-foot cement boardwalks or dikes in every coastal city - but the idea that it would kill off civilization or something crazy like that is ludicrous. The Dust Bowl was probably worse, at least for America, then Global Warming would be, though that did contribute to the depression.
-
Actually some of the scarier scenarios aren't directly water rising related. It could be world wide food shortages due to insects or epidemics. -
@xmarks: But you also have huge amounts of farmland being opened up in the far north of Canada, America, Greenland, Russia, Iceland and many other currently frozen landscapes. I'm not sure how it influences epidemics, or for that matter insects.
-
Insects, viruses and bacteria respond to climate change faster than plants. So as farmland opens in Canada, insects who have never ventured north of Nebraska are also moving into existing and new farmland. The insects will frequently not have been seen be local pest control animals (birds ect.) and their habits will have changed from the southern cousins so chemical pest control will need adjustments. There are already significant damage to northern forests from southern insects.
As for virus/bacteria, there is possibly sicknesses in northern climates that haven't really run amok with man yet. The cold whether and remoteness keeps it in check. Warmth moving north means people moving north and longer possibility for exposure. Chance is remote but scary. -
@xmarks: What you describe with Northern climate already happens as a result of a splendid little plague called jetliners. See, Inuits board the airplane in Nuuk, fly to New York, and start an epidemic in NYC. Unfortunately, we have yet to prevent people living in the far north from traveling to far away lands. More likely these diseases don't exist to begin with because they can't spread fast enough to ensure survival, as there was no measurable increase in epidemics after the advent of Jet Travel, the breakup of the USSR or anything else that would allow THE PEOPLE to travel south.
As for insects, I see no evidence of that. People farm in warm places. -
You don't seem to have understood what I was trying to say.
They explain it better than I:
global warming linked to disease (some are about global warming links to disease in animals - I hope not too big of a leap to go from animal to human):
news.mongabay.com/2005/1114-reuters.html
ec.europa.eu/research/headlines/news/article_06_08_30_en.html
www.miller-mccune.com/mice/global-warming-and-the-mouse-plague-965
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/uoa-gwd010906.php
www.globalhealth.org/news/article/2001
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401931.ht...
warming linked to insects:
www.livescience.com/animals/061104_gb_insects.html
news.mongabay.com/2008/0211-insects.html
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801772.ht...
www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/world/europe/02iht-beetle.4.5536234.html -
@xmarks: As that very same article about Plague points out, these things happened before, and we survived, with inferior technology. With today's technology, anyone who receives antibiotic in the first few days is okay. Might make us a little bit more careful with how often we administer antibiotic but otherwise cost is small.
As for the article on Insects, we have tons of those here in Georgia, and this state continues to be among the most productive agriculturally in America. If you saw how many cockroaches and other pests we have, you'd be a lot less concerned. -
We did survive the black plague and only 20 - 30% of Europeans died. I feel comforted.
The insects that belong in GA probably have some biological control. Those controls may not apply as they move to other regions. -
@xmarks: I don't know what it'd be. We don't have scorpions and the spider population isn't huge. My guess is most of the controls come from agricultural planning and technology.
But beyond that, if you read your first article it makes it very clear that the death rate of plague victims treated in the first few days (and it would show by then, Plague's pretty suspicious you get these little skin markings) is nearly 0. -
you are assuming
1.) that the disease is treatable by antibiotics
2.) it is not a virus
3.) the right type of antibiotics are available
4.) we know what type/dosage of antibiotics to give
5.) that the global stock of antiboitics is enough to cover infected people
Think of it this way. It could lead to increase exposure to things like the bird flu. Use the swine flu as an example. It isn't living up to the scary predictions but we didn't know that in the first few weeks. How long was it before a vaccine came out and several months later, what percent of the global population has been able to receive the vaccine.
Regarding the insects it could be the types of plants available, the length of the breeding season, birds, humidity, etc, etc, etc, Point is we don't know what would set of a difficult to control population explosion. Agricultural tech typically only protects the farms. What about the surrounding plants, trees etc.? -
For 1 and 2 (which are one-way equivalent), I was just responding to that particular suggestion. As warm periods have occurred in Earth's history before (Greenland used to be a farming region, and in Chaucer's time there were Orange groves in Dover) most likely this disease would've also shown up before. I mean, it COULD but it doesn't seem more likely to trigger it then anything else. For 4, we know how to treat Bubonic Plague as there are still cases of it in India.
For 3, I would point out that antibiotics are mostly interchangeable unless a disease has developed a resistance to it, which happens all the time and doctors can notice it pretty fast.
For 5, I would point out that antibiotics are given for a lot less neccessary reasons (minor yeast infections, for instance, and to safe gaurd dental surgeries) that could be temporarily suspended. Some of them (like Penicillin) are also fairly easy to produce and facilities could be converted over to allow this natural antibiotic that grows from a moss to be slightly purified and given to patients.
"What about the surrounding plants, trees etc.?"
Those will adapt, as they have throughout Earths history. -
And his many of the changes in climate large percentages of humanity died. Yes, a few generations later is will seem like not a big deal. I have already stated that this is a low probability scenario.
As for knowing how to treat something, we don't even know what disease it may be. It's great that we know how to deal with the plague but that knowledge might not be so useful against another disease.
I will point out that different antibiotics have different strengths. When you go to the doctor for different diseases you will find that they don't give you the same antibiotic each time. I, for example, have an issue with my throat that causes frequent ear infections. If they can identify that the infection is in my ears only, they give me one antibiotic. If in my throat another. In fact they are not interchangeable in every situation. This is before discussing resistance.
I would point out that if 50% of the population comes down with something that everyone needs high dose of antibiotics within a concentrated period, there simply isn't enough on hand nor potentially time to produce enough more.
All of this discussion, of course, ignores that we could be discussing a virus. In that case, none of your counter arguments hold any validity.
The environment will adapt. How many humans have to die first is the open question.
I'm beginning to suspect that you are pulling my leg because you seem so much smarter than your arguments. You had me going.
-
-
I personally find it unproductive to talk about the existence or nonexistence of global warming. Those still in denial are not going to become convinced by science but rather by some personal experience that might or might not have anything direct origins in the very real phenomenon of global warming.
The major block to climate legislation in the US seems to be short-sighted perceptions of the country's economic interests and fear of some rather inevitable change. Clinging to a bygone age of industrial greatness, they would rather not embrace the innovation necessary to embrace the country's potential in a new era.
Or we could get more basic and look at who the senators are getting their campaign financing from. -
In a sense this is old news. The research and debate within the scientific community has moved on from proving/ disproving man made climate change. It is now all about the degree and time scale of future temperature rises.
Polybore no longer has any interest in the debate, in the same way they are not interested in debating whether or not the Earth is flat. For that reason polybore is not hugely interested in this book.-
As DeSmogBlog has been exposing exactly who have backed the climate change deniers and their spread of misinformation, I don't really expect a lot of surprises will be found in the book.
Example:
Dangerously Dishonest Climate "Expert" at Large in Canada
Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is gamboling his way across Canada, acting like a character recently escaped from a Monty Python skit and inflaming the passions of climate change deniers and their favourite newspaper editors (at the National Post and the Calgary Herald).
Monckton is being urged on and abetted by the Friends of Science, an oily front group, long derided for trying to conceal its connections to the Calgary oil and gas community. Right wing think tanks the Fraser Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy are also sponsoring the tour. (Although the Fraser Institute has been a recipient of Exxon Mobil funding in the past, neither organization is acknowledging who is paying Monckton to suggest that we all have "the courage to do nothing" about climate change.)
www.desmogblog.com/pompous-prat-alert-viscount-monckton-tour -
At the same time, however Polybore, many American citizens (including many labor union Democrats) are not so satisfied. Thus, the debate continues, whether you like it or not.
-
-
Great News! Polls Show Climate Change Scare is Over!
6 October 09
The National Post's Denier-in-Chief Lawrence Solomon www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181... has weighed in again network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/03/lawrence-sol... with an irrelevant and inaccurate celebration that, in the U.S. at least, people are becoming LESS concerned about climate change.
Of course, Solomon didn't offer any actual evidence for this contention, other than vague references to unspecified public opinion polls. His strongest source was this: "Andrew Revkin, The New York Times reporter entrusted with the global warming scare beat, has for months lamented “the public’s waning interest in global warming. ...
This kind of detail doesn't traditionally appeal to Solomon, who wrote a whole book, called The Deniers, even though he admitted on page 45 of that tract that he had not found a single scientist - anywhere - who actually denied that humans are warming the earth in a dangerous way. www.desmogblog.com/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-dont-actua...
Read the full article www.desmogblog.com/great-news-polls-show-climate-change-scare-over -
Frankly I am tired of all the rhetoric...Our Planet is oviously very sick...It is time to actually do something about it...All I see from governments is schemes to create taxes...We must start actually doing something...-
Agreed, and this is part of the reason why eliminating coal is such a good idea, because coal also contributes to toxic waste (during refinement in to coke for burning), radiation in the atmosphere, and a lot of other similar problems.
-
-
Funny thing about this whole climate change/global warming debate. For everything pro-global warming scientific information you can find, there is probably an equal number of anti-global warming scientific information.
When I say anti-global warming, I'm talking about global warming at a crisis level and global warming which blames carbon dioxide as the main culprit. The Science is definitely not conclusive.
Our planet's atmospher and climate have been changing for millions of years. Just back in 1970s, they were predicting a upcoming new ice age.-
An amount of information for one theory that is pseudo-scientific does not have the same value as the results of science. Indeed, the scientific disputes that exist now are about the nature of global warming, e.g., its timing, not whether or not it is real.
The notion that change has occurred over long stretches of time is a non argument. For one thing, it does not undo the fact that something very different has happened in our own lifetimes, and only one variable is different: human behavior.
But trying to argue this point is fruitless. To stick to recent news, think about those who are leaving the US Chamber of Commerce because of its Luddite views. Besides Apple (thehill.com/homenews/news/61669-apple-becomes-fourth-company-to-leave-us-ch...), there was even a major utility (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092203258.ht...). -
When I talk about anti-global warming scientific information, I'm talking about climatogists and paleo-climatologists. I'm not talking about people like Steven Malloy.
-
I haven't seen many climatologists or paleo-climatologists claiming that there the climate isn't currently warming, the warming isn't caused by (at least in part) by human activities and/or the change in climate at the rate it is changing doesn't pose a significant threat to humanity.
Mind posting some links? -
This, from two years ago:
"Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming."
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=...
And this from September of this year:
"15 Sep 09 – Last week one of the leading climate modelers in the world - Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute - who has been pushing the IPCC's contention that humans are causing global warming, conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade. He also conceded that we are likely entering one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.
“When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy," says this article by Lorne Gunter.
“So why was a speech last week by not given more prominence?"
Latif is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the (IPCC), says Gunter. "He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously."
"Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference, Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade."
iceagenow.com/Scientists_pull_about-face_on_global_warming%E2%80%93for_now....
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
