Michael Tobis presents an interesting case study on the denialist echo chamber at work.
I guess if you copy/paste a falsehood often enough it just becomes true!
Frank Bi and a few others, myself included, have been working on tracking down a similar echo chamber at his blog. It’s not one dedicated fellow so much as “coordinated local (127.0.0.1) activism” between think tanks. It started off rudimentary, and then kind of asploded. (See the followup links.)
I could not agree more, this type of behaviour does nothing to promote the debate in regards to climate change and people shoud not be subjected to misinformation repeated over and over again. However this does give you a small glimpse into what people like myself have to go through on a daily basis.
Here is a link to a web site that lists all of the modern world ills that is blamed on global warming,
My favorite is that GW caused a blackhawk to be shot down in Somalia.
as you say if you repeat a falsehood often enough it just becomes true!
Coby, thanks for the linkage.
Crakar. Huh. Well it’s far from clear what THAT list is about. I picked a sequence of 5 at random:
“NFL threatened” – tongue in cheek article about Green Bay team’s winter home advantage
“Nile delta damaged” – no reference to global climate change at all (salinity and water tables is the topic)
“noctilucent clouds” – legitimate physical science observations
“no effect in India” – a person suggests that climate change has NOT hit India
“Northwest passage opened” – demonstrably true
at which point I decided that it wasn’t a very serious list.
If there is a falsehood “repeated” across these articles, it would be good if you were to point it out. Otherwise just seems like you are saying a lot of people mention weather, climate, hydrology or sea level in a lot of contexts, which kind of doesn’t seem all that sinister to me.
Of course, 4 watts per square meter will affect a lot of things and so a lot of people are thinking about how it could affect this or that thing they are interested in. So you could make a much more coherent list if you tried. Let’s just pretend you did. What of it?
Please point out the alleged “falsehood” in either case. Also please explain your tortured analogy to the small group of people dedicated to spending a lot of time and effort spamming the internet with what they like to call “skepticism”. Thanks in advance.
Coby, Brian D:
It gets better than that: apparently cutting-and-pasting is also part and parcel of Marc Morano’s day job — as a federal employee using taxpayer resources.
Sorry Micheal, i should have made it clearer it was a joke. (I thought the story about the black hawk was funny). Did not read the one about GB but i will now.
Actually i would like to expand on my last post just to make it clear, i was agreeing with Coby (we all know C02 is not 3rd)and the methods used by these people is merely clouding the issue rather than making it clearer.
The main problem with the climate debate is that the facts have been forgotten and replaced with sensationalism (on both sides) to promote agendas etc. which is a shame really, the link i posted is a collection of stupid (but funny) news stories about the climate change issue.
I hope this clears things up a bit.
(on both sides)
In other words:
Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too!
Also, when a global warming ‘skeptic’ pastes the same rant 87 times, it’s more than balanced by another global warming ‘skeptic’ collecting lots of news stories (many unrelated) and calling them examples of ‘alarmism’, which is really a joke, but you get my point, whatever my point is.
the methods used by these people is merely clouding the issue rather than making it clearer.
Someone seems to be talking about himself in the third person…
Sorry bi but i am not from the USA so your reference to Clinton is completely lost on me, unless you are trying to say he like all US presidents are complete fools?
Anyway repeating something 87 times does not further the debate just like Hansen/Gore/wannbe suedo scientists making up scary stories to scare little children does not further the debate.
Referencing pathetic excuses for a president does not further the debate.
Media outlets who simply publish regurgitated scary stories without question but refuse to publish anything that contradicts the AGW mantra does not further the debate.
And finally your post does nothing to further the debate.
PS I am told the most famous thing Clinton ever said was “hold my calls and sack the cook” to Monica is this correct.
So Crakar14, you try to answer the charge of the 87 cut-and-pastes of the same denialist talking points by
1. citing some bogus web site,
2. and when it was shown to be bogus, claiming that it was all a joke,
3. and then claiming that your original point still holds nevertheless.
Anyway repeating something 87 times does not further the debate
There’s no “debate” except the one you’re repeatedly trying to conjure up.
If there is no debate then why do you continue with posting, i promise to stop if you do so it can be official “there is no debate”.
Or maybe we should start again?
1, We both agree with Coby that the 87 times thing is stupid, and was a childish like attempt to spread falsehoods.
2, I posted the link to show how the internet can be used by all/any parties to push their own agendas (this is not limited to climate change) however the link i sent was related to that.
If you honestly believe that GW caused the blackhawk to be shot down, then sorry but it wasnt, but to attempt to influence the public opinion on GW by saying this, this is a JOKE. In fact i laughed my arse off when i read it.
My point therefore was/is the idiot posting the same bullshit 87 times is no different to the stupid American politician making the blackhawk claim.
Thats it, we can either agree or disagree with your perception of what of type.
> If there is no debate then why do you continue with posting,
So the fact that I’m disputing your claim that “there is a debate” shows that there is a debate?
This is some wonderfully convoluted ‘logic’.
I had a look at the website and it was exactly is i expected.
Where i come from you would be known as “someone who talks shit”
Goodbye and good luck Frank.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
I have a sad announcement to make, further to my previous posting about a missing edition…
Filed under “data can be cool”
This is a graph of wind and air pressure at a…
Aside from the climate blogosphere, Paul Krugman’s “Conscience of a Liberal” is my most regular blog…
Only In It For The Gold: Neither Optimist nor Pessimist, Just Activist.
“We must stop treating the…
Just a quick note to regulars and those who like to visit the weekly GW News…