climate change times are a changin'

[Handyman]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

"Climate denial" is very common shorthand for "denial of the hypothesis that climate change is man-made." While writers do sometimes employ the sort of editorial dirty tricks you allude to to reinforce their points (like, for example, characterizing "homophobic" as a rhetorical trick rather than an actual, observable bigotry), this is not at all an instance of that.

Sure it does...cause like...reasons and stuff!!

 

[geezer]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

"Climate denial" is very common shorthand for "denial of the hypothesis that climate change is man-made." While writers do sometimes employ the sort of editorial dirty tricks you allude to to reinforce their points (like, for example, characterizing "homophobic" as a rhetorical trick rather than an actual, observable bigotry), this is not at all an instance of that.

It's a very clear example of it. In fact "climate denial" has already been written up a number of times in journals as the perfect example of the kind of lazy journalistic malfeasance that damages the integrity of "the conversation". Yes, it's commonly used, but so is "all natural" on food labels.

 

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

It's a very clear example of it. In fact "climate denial" has already been written up a number of times in journals as the perfect example of the kind of lazy journalistic malfeasance that damages the integrity of "the conversation". Yes, it's commonly used, but so is "all natural" on food labels.

Poppycock.

(I have been accused of verbosity. I'm working on it.)

 

[geezer]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Poppycock.

(I have been accused of verbosity. I'm working on it.)

Now that's an excellent word choice, if misused.
Also: "bigotry" and "phobia" do NOT have the same meaning. When did clarity become so undervalued?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

This article lost all credibility pretty early: "...researchers that promoted climate denial..."
I have yet to meet or hear of anyone who would "deny climate." It's a little piece of suggestive rhetoric along the lines of "anti-choice" and "homophobic" that writers who don't have actual information to share use to attempt to force an emotional response.
(I'm not saying Exxon isn't 100% motivated by profit and will clearly lie early and often to get more. I'm saying this writer did a terrible job of presenting that information)

This is really what you're going with?

 

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Also: "bigotry" and "phobia" do NOT have the same meaning. When did clarity become so undervalued?

This jiggery pokery again?

"Homophobia" carries additional nuances than simply "phobia." Take it up with the English language if you don't like it.

 

[geezer]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Take it up with the English language if you don't like it.

Yeah, I know, language is "fluid" and "responsive" and whatnot. (aka I'm allowed to be lazy because I text on a tiny keyboard and stuff) It's a losing battle.
An actual phobia is a clinical, diagnosable mental illness. Do we want to conflate mentally ill people with bigots? Why?

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

"Climate denial" is very common shorthand for "denial of the hypothesis that climate change is man-made." While writers do sometimes employ the sort of editorial dirty tricks you allude to to reinforce their points (like, for example, characterizing "homophobic" as a rhetorical trick rather than an actual, observable bigotry), this is not at all an instance of that.

OK, so by that, can pro-life forces start referring to the other point of view as ... (wait for it) ... "life denial"? It's just shorthand for what's going on.

 

[Slap Shot]

Now that's an excellent word choice, if misused.
Also: "bigotry" and "phobia" do NOT have the same meaning. When did clarity become so undervalued?

I prefer, "horse hockey" as uttered by the great Sherman. T. Potter.

 

[GrinCDXX]

This article lost all credibility pretty early: "...researchers that promoted climate denial..."
I have yet to meet or hear of anyone who would "deny climate." It's a little piece of suggestive rhetoric along the lines of "anti-choice" and "homophobic" that writers who don't have actual information to share use to attempt to force an emotional response.
(I'm not saying Exxon isn't 100% motivated by profit and will clearly lie early and often to get more. I'm saying this writer did a terrible job of presenting that information)

Speaking of rhetorical devices...how about nit picking a word choice that wasn't important to the overall point of the article and using that to declare the entire thing to have lost all credibility. That way, one can avoid dealing with what was said in the rest of the article--even if much of it is simple, verifiable fact. Not one of the strongest rhetorical plays...but certainly has good bang for the buck.

 

[geezer]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Speaking of rhetorical devices...how about nit picking a word choice that wasn't important to the overall point of the article and using that to declare the entire thing to have lost all credibility. That way, one can avoid dealing with what was said in the rest of the article--even if much of it is simple, verifiable fact. Not one of the strongest rhetorical plays...but certainly has good bang for the buck.

I realize the story is true - it was self-evident long ago that Exxon was 100% motivated by profit and paying big bucks for custom research to back them up. As hinted, much like big tobacco has done for years and years, and many other industries as well. It should be fairly obvious that corporations ONLY exist to make money.
I just find lazy writing irritating in a published piece. Enough so to go and find a better source (if there were anything new to learn there)

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

So you surmised the whole of it was lazy writing based upon a handful of words? Irony at its finest.

 

[geezer]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

So you surmised the whole of it was lazy writing based upon a handful of words? Irony at its finest.

No, it was really just one word; he should have stuck "change" between "climate" and "deniers." I can't be bothered reading that lazy stuff.

 

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I just find lazy writing irritating in a published piece. Enough so to go and find a better source (if there were anything new to learn there)

I have the same reaction to lazy writing, but this wasn't a case of lazy writing. "Climate denier" has become a term of art.

But the point that's being lost in all of this is what is new here. Climate deniers (see what I did there?) were obvious shills -- everybody knew that except for Caribou Barbie and a handful of people of the same intellectual caliber. What's new is that the people paying them to be shills already knew the science of man-made climate change decades ago. That's what makes the analogy with the tobacco companies so perfect: originally we thought they were just paying their shills to muddy the waters, but it turns out that no, they were actually flat out lying. And that ought to open up those companies to enormous lawsuits.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Maybe. It's going to be tough to prove AND be awarded direct damages.

 

[geezer]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

OK, I think the point has been well established, I apologize for noticing it. "Climate denial" it is.
What are the odds I would get shouted down if I bring up my thoughts on the phrases "pro-death" and "anti-choice" regarding childbirth?

 

[huskyfan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I realize the story is true - it was self-evident long ago that Exxon was 100% motivated by profit and paying big bucks for custom research to back them up. As hinted, much like big tobacco has done for years and years, and many other industries as well. It should be fairly obvious that corporations ONLY exist to make money.

much like the academics who get large grants to research climate change

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

much like the academics who get large grants to research climate change

Academics is not like that. The thing people miss is that if you were to overturn a scientifically validated idea, you would be highly rewarded. There is extreme motivation to do so.

When it comes to funding from unbiased sources, you need scientific plausibility and knowledge of the current literature. I have been privy to many NIH grant reviews and those are the driving factors to scoring a grant with regards to a set funding line.

 

[geezer]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Here's a really fun little collection of charts. What's somewhat aggravating (see chart 1) is that we're stuck under the one little spot on the globe where it's been too cold to grow any kind of a garden the last couple years while Europe and Alaska are getting all the bonus heat. Why doesn't global warming get dialed in where it would actually do some good?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Why is the global CO2 concentration a near-perfect sawtooth?