Sunday, June 5, 2016

SB1161 - Response to Kyle Feldscher's misleading 6/3/16 Washington Examiner article

Regarding the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 - CB1161
Kyle Feldscher, 
you wrote about Democratic State Senator James Monning withdrawing California Senate Bill 1161, though the bill had passed both the state Senate's environmental and judiciary committees and can be reconsidered at a later date. The reason I want to examine your article is because you used that opening to launch into a Marc Morano love fest while completely misrepresenting what this bill was about, or why many people believe such action is needed.  

In this post I will quote your 6/3/16 Washington Examiner article while explaining why your arguments don't hold any water.  In fact, your retelling is typical of the conniving disingenuous misrepresentation of facts that has made many feel they have no choice but to try and legislate honesty - extreme though that may seem.
__________________________________________

"Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt" by Kyle Feldscher  (Nope, if anything the bill wants to make deliberate malicious misrepresentation of true down to Earth facts and findings legally actionable!)

"... According to the reports, which have been criticized for being funded by anti-fossil fuel groups, {It doesn't matter who unearthed them!  What about acknowledging that the facts are accurate?  
Why no show of concern at such systemic disregard for critically important fundamental scientific facts, and honestly representing them?} 

the company then just known as Exxon, knew the burning of fossil fuels could cause global warming as early as the 1970s. However, the company suppressed that knowledge and continued with its practices, and even funded groups to promote an anti-climate change agenda, according to the reports. {They were much more than "reports."  Kyle why didn't you use the more accurate "according to overwhelming evidence"?}

Those reports have sparked a larger investigation into Exxon Mobil's practices by four attorneys general, and 16 others have promised to cooperate in some way. ...
{Kyle have you read some of this stuff?  
Why shouldn't citizens be outraged?
Please explain, how do you justify what Exxon executives and their PR bullies have done?}

The Road Not Taken: Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.
By Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer, September 16, 2015

~ ~ ~

 Two-faced Exxon: the misinformation campaign against its own scientists
100% global warming consensus in Exxon scientists’ research contrasted its $31m campaign to cast doubt on that consensus
By Dana Nuccitelli, November 25, 2015

~ ~ ~

Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General
By Justin Gillis and Clifford Kraus,  November 5, 2015

~ ~ ~

ExxonMobil Warns of ‘Catastrophic’ 9°F to 12°F Global Warming Without Government Action
By Joe Romm, December 7, 2015

~ ~ ~

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation. 
By Shannon Hall, October 26, 2015 

~ ~ ~

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
By Suzanne Goldenberg, July 8, 2015

~ ~ ~
But many {More accurately Republican/libertarian} critics of the bill say it's an attempt to criminalize not believing in climate change and goes against the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech.
{Where does the First Amendment protect tactical deception employing dirty tricks, lies and malicious slander to deliberately block the public from honestly and constructively learning about what Earth and Climate Scientists have been discovering about what we are doing to our life supporting biosphere?}

Marc Morano, a climate change doubter who runs Climate Depot, said the California bill is the logical end point of the debate between believers and doubters. {Marc Morano is a political operative with a rich history of contempt for honesty.  Winning political battles at any cost is the only thing that interests him, and he loves getting as theatric or as ruthless as need be.  

His arrogant dismissiveness toward serious scientific efforts at understanding how our planet is behaving reveals an intellect incapable of thinking past today's desires with a free-loader's disregard for the consequences of his actions.  

Understanding what scientists are trying to explain to us is something that we should be able to demand that it be taken seriously.  Whereas someone like Morano, can't see past his own immediate self-interest.  Why the hell trust him on anything important?}

Morano said those who believe in climate change have been trying for years to silence doubters and now {Nonsense!  What scientists have been trying to do for many years to honestly inform leaders and citizens about what they are discovering and learning about our Earth's climate system, which if you take a moment to think about it, we depend on for everything.

 They deserve to be listened to without political bullies and their contrived media megaphones out-screaming serious important information with deliberate slander and lies. 

What we want is an honest substantive constructive debate, not Morano's type of no holds barred circus debate.  

We want mistakes to be understood and learned from.
We want misinformation to be acknowledged and retired, 
rather than endlessly repackaged and recycled.}

given the calls to investigate Exxon Mobil for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and the California bill, there are attempts to actually charge people for their beliefs.  {If your belief is that it's okay to deliberately misrepresent and lie about solid scientific facts, you deserved to be exposed and ostracized!  

Likewise, if you believe that it's okay to maliciously slander accomplished, honorable scientists with fabricated lies intend on ruining their hard earned and well deserved credibility, you deserve to be exposed and ostracized!}

"You can't even question the predictions of 50-100 years from now or that's considered hate speech," he said.  {As usual Morano is lying.  Look at the bill, nothing of the sort is even hinted at.  We are talking about deliberate, tactical and systemic misrepresentation of understood fundamental science.  Critically important science mind you.  

This is not about questioning science or Free Speech, it is about deliberate ruthless, vicious, malicious, campaigns based on slander and lies dedicated to robbing the American people of our right to honestly learn what scientists have come to learn about this planet Earth that we depend on!} "That goes against everything this country was founded on."  {When and where has deliberate lying about critically important issues been condoned or tolerated within the framework our founding fathers established ???}

Morano said climate change believers want to delegitimize their critics instead of engaging in any sort of debate over the science. He said the bill proposed by Allen is another step in silencing dissent.  {Kyle, why do you skip over this atrocity, pretending that it hasn't resulting in grievous damage to the course of the past decades and the wellbeing of our children's futures?}

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.
By Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer, September 16, 2015
_____________________________________________________

 If Morano wants to debate serious scientists he must first acknowledge the difference between his agenda driven approach to a debate and the scientists/students style of debate.

 Morano only knows the political debate.  That is, the Lawyer's Debate with it's inherent disregard for truth, instead making a virtue out of absolute tunnel focus on winning one's argument no matter what deception is called for.

As opposed to the serious adult Constructive Debate where arriving at a better more accurate understanding takes precedence over individual ego trips and self-centered agendas.  

In this debate, facts carry the day - if that demands admitting you were wrong about something, that's what you do while in the process you learn about why you were wrong, thus finishing up better informed than when you started.   That is why such a debate can be called a Constructive Debate.  Whereas the right-wings style of debate leaves everyone more confused than ever.  But than, that's their tactical intent - sow confusion and inaction.

I have spent years trying to find some contrarian to stand up to an honest debate, they run off one after another.  If it can't be twisted into a circus debate, they want nothing to do with it and disappear.   It's a regular pattern, big with up front claims, empty when it comes to followup and constructive engagement.  Don't believe me, look around at my blog archive, WUWTW has the details of my run-ins with their collective intellectual cowardice and base dishonesty.
_____________________________________________________

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano
Shauna Theel and Jill Fitzsimmons, December 27, 2012 

~ ~ ~
In a stunning journalistic lapse, the NY Times gives credulous coverage to Swift Boat smearer Marc Morano, the Jayson Blair of global warming
By Joe Romm,  April 9, 2009 

~ ~ ~
Here's an interesting aside revealing Morano's disregard for serious science.  He uses the word, but with no genuine conception of what it means, nor the ethical, intellectual underpinning to honesty appraise it.

Credential Inflation: A Favorite Tactic of Denialists
By Jeffrey Shallit, January 04, 2008 

One of the favorite dishonest tactics of denialists of all stripes is credential inflation. Credential inflation is the process by which those with little proficiency or knowledge of an area, or people with marginal credentials, are touted as experts. In this way, denialists can argue from authority, hoping that no one will challenge the credentials of their spokesmen. ...

I contacted the author of the Inhofe blog piece, Marc Morano. (Morano is a far-right hack who was involved in spreading the false Swift-boat claims about John Kerry.) Morano claimed in e-mail to me that "Lord Monckton has written many research papers on climate change", but was unable to substantiate this claim, producing instead a list of articles that appeared in newspapers such as the Telegraph and the Frontiers of Freedom website. 

I then asked Morano about Monckton's training in climatology. He replied as follows:
"As far as I know Lord Monckton is not trained in climatology. But why do you only ask about climatology. The current global warming issue involved so many different disciplines, ie. Mathematics, economics, statisticians for modeling, Geologists for Earth's history, Astrophysicists for solar linking, oceanographers to understand CO2 emissions from oceans, etc."

To which I replied "You're right. Does Lord Monckton have any formal training in mathematics, statistics, geology, astrophysics, or oceanography?" To which Morano replied, "I do not know his entire educational background, but I do know that he has conducted climate research and even, I understand, got he UN to make a few corrections after he alerted them. That certainly qualifies as a "climate researcher." Maybe not peer-reviewed as you would like, but it still qualifies."

Shameless. I've pointed out mistakes in chemistry books, but that doesn't make me a chemistry researcher. ...
~ ~ ~
I'll admit, I'm not wild about this source, still, those are Morano's words, and they are revealing about what kind of man this is.

By apsmith,  January 25, 2008 


I posted yesterday about Marc Morano's attacks on a recent American Geophysical Union statement supporting climate change science. Morano, if you recall, is the communications director for James Inhofe's minority senate committee on environment and public works. According to this C-Span page, as a senate committee communications director Morano is likely paid a full-time government salary on the order of at least $65,000. So what do you suppose our tax dollars are paying for today?


As of 8:00 pm Eastern time Jan 25th, Morano had written a total of nine comments in this thread, some very lengthy, attacking not only the AGU, but also the IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Sciences, Andrew Dessler, Ray Pierrehumbert, realclimate, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and to top it all off, the whole institution of peer review! Entertaining I suppose, but I'm wondering if we should ask for our money back on this one... More details below the fold. …
_________________________________________________________ 

I don't get much feedback on these WUWTW posts, but I believe this issue deserves some attention so I've started a thread over at my favorite online forum CFI  - maybe someone will engage in this important discussion, or should I call it "debate"?  
Consider it neutral territory, come on down.  

Anyone want to debate SB1161 - the “Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act”?
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)