Tuesday, March 30, 2010

First the West Bend school board race -- now the Climate Denial Industry

I wonder what it'll be like when Koch Industries is supplying the economic advice to West Bend city council?

Greenpeace Unmasks Koch Industries' Funding of Climate Denial Industry

This would explain the Boots and Sabers idea of democratic government as something to do with, well, Boots and Sabers. Working for the man must be good. ;^)


Kevin Scheunemann said...

"Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change."

"One of the main obstructions to meaningful (global climate change) action is modern democracy."

"It may be neccessary to put democracy on hold for a while." (to battle climate change)

--James Lovelock- British climate change scientist/warming religion "Pope"

So it appears, if you support the global warming religion, you support authoritarianism, a return to dark age oppressive government authority, and oppose democracy.

"Climate Change deniers" are the freedom fighters and democracy supporters.

I would be ashamed to support the warming religion with this authoritarian Hitler as my religious/spiritual leader!

I find it refresshing that people are not afraid to throw off their authoritarian bondage represented by the implementation of the global warming religion throughout society!

Off to warm the planet---for democracy and freedom! (and to shame those of you that support the anti-democratic warming religion.)

Anonymous said...

I'm new to posting here but have been a long time reader of this blog.

Kevin, one thing I notice about most of your posts is that there is no real substance to them. Take your above post for example. Nothing in your post provides any meaningful refutation of any of the arguments made in the article that Mark linked to. Maybe I have missed your case for why you believe AGW to be fraudulent in another post.

I'm not a scientist so I can't give really impressive sounding arguments for or against AGW. I think you are taking the debate to an ideological extreme that is dangerous. You have so convinced yourself that AGW is wrong and is in some way a religion that you have totally closed your mind to the possibility that you and the rest of the AGW skeptics might be wrong. The same, of course, can be said of the other side as well. Perhaps we should all take an ideological breather in this debate and consider the consequences if the other side is right.

Both sides have used some pretty impressive scare tactics to try to convince others to come their side. If AGW is correct and we do nothing, we face an ecological hell. If it is wrong and we do something, we face a totalitarion nightmare reminiscent of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Neither side has a monopoly on the use of scare tactics.

There is too much at stake here to be arrogant and pigheaded in this debate.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


You are completely correct.

My assault on the global warming religion mimics the typical liberal assault on Christianity and religious speech. There is no rationality or substance to that either. The only coherent thought is to oppress all things religious in public. So based on my liberal friends, I view it as an effective political argument---demonize all things religious.

I view the global warming religion as a basic threat to democracy, so oppression of all warming preaching seems like an excellent tactic.

Are we saying its WRONG to assault religion in this manner, either the global warming religion or Christianity?

Or is it a matter I'm picking on the "favored" liberal religion of global warming?

Is that verboten?

Its only OK to oppress "disfavored" liberal religions like Christianity?

Help me out, I'm confused which religions are favored and are free of liberal public square oppression.

Anonymous said...

Again Kevin, you say nothing of any value to the debate on global warming. You avoid any meaningful dialogue by redirecting the argument to other topics unrelated to AGW. Could you provide some empricial reasons why you believe AGW is false? By that I mean, what scientific research have you studied that leads you to the conclusion that AGW is fraudulent?

I don't like either scenario if one side is right and we ignore them. I also don't have the scientific expertise to judge the soundness of any scientific research for or against AGW. If you were honest with yourself you would admit that you do not either. I'm looking for a rational way of making a judgement about what to do that doesn't involve hysterics or demonizing one's opponent or redefining religion.

You do not contribute anything to that endeavor.

Kevin Scheunemann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin Scheunemann said...


So the "value" of my speech is exclusively subject to your judgment?

What happened to all the liberal compassion and tolerance we hear so much about? Isn't everyone equally "valued" in the liberal religion?

On Global warming, are you completely unaware of all the scientific frauds that have been exposed, just in the last 8 months on the issue?

I don't have a problem with the warming...if its happening. I hope its happening, my natural gas bill needs to go down in winter!

What I oppose is the religious arrogance we can control the climate! That is religious belief, pure and simple

DanBack said...


Do you act the same way in your real life as you do on this blog?

DanBack said...

And please read this before you ever use the word "public" again.


Anonymous said...

Kevin, you seem to be suffering from the Ginny complex. Whenever anyone critizices your arguments you claim religious persectution, censorship or ad hominen attacks.

I don't believe it is religious arrogance if it can be shown scientifically that our actions are directly affecting the climate. I think it is equally arrogant to declare by fiat that our actions do not have any effect on the cllimate without any empirical data to support that assertion.

The value of all of our speech is always judged by the recipient. For someone who is finally beginning to explore the issue of AGW I find nothing helpful in your comments so far that would casue me to pause and say "That's interesting, I think I will into that further". Right now I don't know which side to believe. Both are susceptible to being corrupted by money, the denialists by energy companies with a lot to loose and the warmers by their research grants and green energy companies with a lot to gain.

All I am saying that for me, as an individual searching for a way to reach a reasonable conlcusion, your arguments so far have given me nothing to look into, nothing to research and nothing useful in understanding the issue.

And yes, I am aware of the so called "frauds" that have come out in the last few months. But how can I be certain that these "frauds" aren't being misrepresented to the public by people with ties to the oil companies, or conservatives both political and religious?

P.S. I also find your claims that Christianity is an oppressed religion, no longer allowed in the public square hard to accept. We live in a country with ministries like Focus on the Family that rake in over $300 million per year, with knows how many televison and radio channels devoted to broadcasting Christian content and countless websites proclaiming Christianity. In this country people can stand up at school board meetings and library board meetings and speak their mind freely and can quote scripture while doing so. Like your definition of religion, your definition of oppression is pretty odd.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


Meaning....that I refuse practice favored liberal religions, like global warming...yeah, I'm like that in person too.

Is it a problem for me to like disfavored liberal religions, vs favored liberal religions?

I appreciate any advice you can lend to help me sort out the religions in terms of "social graces."

I knew you were a good guy...helping me out like this.

Free Lunch said...

Kevin, the value of your comments is as good as the information that you use to develop your opinion. Since you have made it clear that you will not allow scientific discovery or any other facts get in the way of your opinions, we must conclude that your opinions are not worth anything to anyone, not even to you.

Stop posting silly claims here and go learn something.

Anonymous said...

In a recent development in the global warming debate the House of Commons has released the first report in their investigation into the East Anglia email scandal. Read it here http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf.

In short the report finds that the use of terms like “trick” and “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms commonly used by scientists in casual conversations amongst themselves and that there was no intent to deceive or lie about their findings. The report also found that the scientists followed usual protocol for making their data available but suggests that in the case of climate research, there needs to be more openness than normal given the wide ranging consequences of their findings.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Free Lunch,

Which silly claim would you like me to stop posting?

1.) The part where a leading global warming priest says we are "too stupid to prevent climate change"?

2.) The part where a leading global warming priest says democracy is a hinderence to the authoritarian plans of the warming religion?

3.) The part where a leading global warming priest says democracy needs to be done away with in favor of the warming religion?

If I was a global warming religious disciple, I'd want to shut me down too...my factual arguments are devastating to the warming worship from a PR perspective.

C'mon liberals/progressives, oppressing religion is something you are good at. Why don't don't you join me to battle a religion dedicated to destroying democracy according to its head priest?

Or, as liberals, have we given up on democracy?

Or is this warming "scientist" just wrong?

Free Lunch said...


If you expect to be taken seriously, tell us what your opinion is about anthropogenic climate change and how you arrived at that opinion.

Anonymous said...

I haven't actually seen any facts as of yet in your dialogue that would refute any of the data out there supporting AGW. A particular scientist's political beliefs in and of itself does not invalidate all the research that has been completed up until now.

You are making the argument that since this leading AGW scientist apparently hates democracy, as evidenced by his quotations, all AGW researchers are liberal socialists out to oppress our liberties and therefore all of their AGW research is invlaid.

There are so many fallacies and holes in that logic I don't know where to begin. That argument makes a lot of unfounded assumptions, and ignores completely the process whereby conclusions are reached in science.
You assume that one scientist's political views are shared by all scientists. You assume that his political views are biasing his conclusions. You must assume also that for his conclusions to be biased his data has to be cooked. You also assume that these practices apply to over 2,500 climate scientists throughout the world.

Your logic and argumentation are no different than the logic and argumentation employed by those who believe the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, and bigfoot exists.

Also, your equating science with religion is getting old. Show me something from any of the founding documents of this country that implied religion was anything other than belief in a god or gods. Show me anything were current legal thinking applies the lable of religion to anything other than those beliefs. You can redefine words all you want, but it doesn't make your arguments any more valid.

DanBack said...

This is just fantastic.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

wb freethinker---

So the belief we CAN control the climate is not religious or "belief" based?

Show me actual test data that reducing carbon emissions CAN cool the planet? (how do you know it will not kill plant life causing a worse "dust bowl" effect, trapping even more heat for starters...)

What do you do about those pesky volcanic and other uncontrollable techtonic/climate events that spew more CO2 in the air than the U.S.?

Do you claim to control the earth's crust as well?

What about uncontrolable sun spots? Scientists are convinced sun spots can also warm/cool the planet.

What I don't get is: how the conceit that man can control the climate is anything other than a religious belief?

More power to your warming worship, just don't force the rest of us to do your warming dance around the camp fire or whatever cave ritual is currently hip in the warming religion.

Anonymous said...

Kevin, all of these questions you raise have been answered repeatedly, climatologists, then reanswered again when the skeptics rebut the climatologists answers. I'll play this little game of gotcha for a little while. Here is some info that can start you out on the path to learning how CO2 affects global temps. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm. Humans emit more than 130 times more carbon in a year than volcanos. See http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php. As for the sunspots see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm. And you can't seriously think that a reduction in carbon emissions will kill plant life do you? Since lush forests and jungles thrived prior to the industrial revolution I don't think it takes a PhD in climatology to figure that one out.

Now I am sure you will come up with websites to counter the ones I just gave you and then It would be my turn to do the same and then you would turn around and counter those and we could continue this ad nauseum. But I won't do that as that just gets plain silly.

Have you actually taken the time to read anything about global warming or have you reached the conclusion you have, simply because the proposed solutions violate your Republican principles?

You have demonstrated in this thread the absolute closed mindedness, denail of reality, fearful paranoia and complete disregard for facts necessary for someone to embrace in order to hold the viewpoint that you do. I just can't go through life like that. I refuse to live my life in the same kind of denial and paranoia and fear that you do.

This has been a fun discussion. but I grow weary of it. And with that said, I am now done with this thread.

Free Lunch said...


I see that you have chosen to repeat the lies of the the lobbyists for the coal and oil & gas industries rather than choose to learn anything. As I said above, you have an opinion that is of no value to you or anyone else, yet you feel the need to express it and show us how foolish you are in arriving at that opinion.

No one forced you to repeat falsehoods or act like a fool. You have chosen to do that on your own. Congratulations on managing to stay so ignorant.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Free Lunch,

The "lies" of the oil and coal industry?

Could you define which "lies" of those industries I'm repeating?

I enjoyed both of your responses. Both of you essentially called me ignorant and failed to address all the natural CO2 emission sources, YOU CAN'T CONTROL!

The idea of human control of CO2 in the atmosphere is a myth. It is not a science. Belief you can control something you cannot control is a delusion of divinity...which is a religion.

I know you grow weary. I'd grow weary defending something that wants to destroy democracy, destroy economic development, tells humans they are stupid, increases our natural gas heating bills in winter, "skyrocket(s)" our electricity rates, and diminishes our standard of living...its like defending Genghis Khan as a compassionate civic leader.

Defending a position I don't believe is good for my fellow man would make me weary as well.

I feel your pain.

Free Lunch said...


I know this is a shock to you, but climate scientists have already taken natural sources into account when analyzing the data and developing their models.

All you do is remind us that you refuse to learn anything about science while making silly claims that show us all how little you know. You still haven't answered my question about what scientific model you think is valid. Do you have any idea what a scientific model is?

You have confused the science that shows that anthropogenic climate change is happening with the possible ways to try to deal with this chance. You also make the logical error of denying that something is true because the consequences of it being true are too terrible for you to deal with. Reality doesn't actually change just because you don't like what reality is.

You know that you are wrong when you call it 'religion'. You know that you don't understand what is going on. You know that you have had ample opportunity to learn about it. You know that you have chosen not to learn.

Since you have chosen to remain ignorant, why don't you keep you ignorant opinions to yourself so people who actually are trying to solve the problem can make an effort to solve the problem.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Free Lunch,

Taken "Natural CO2 Sources" into account?

You are now saying scientists can predict volcanic eruptions with scientific certainty?

And can precisely predict the scope and amount of CO2 those eruptions will release into the atmosphere?

What happpens if we have 1 or 2 unexpected eruptions, which will more than wipe out even the most strict North Korean style, authoritarian greenhouse regulatory "gain" on CO2 levels?

We sacrificed democracy for what...some scientists insane dream to control the climate?

Are you sure you want to keep digging this hole you are getting yourself into?

How far are you going to take the warming worship? (Because I will play along if you want to keep going...)

DanBack said...

I refuse to believe that Kevin is this much of an asshole to people in real life. Although, maybe that's why he has refused repeated offers to meed up for a beer.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


I actually don't drink beer. My wife also frowns on me hangin' out at the bar.

I don't have any problem with your invitation, and appreciate it, its just that my wife may not appreciate me hangin' out and talking politics for hours. She knows I can't be peeled away from a good political discussion.

So don't take offense at me not being able to accept it. Keeping my wife happy is higher on my life priority list.

DanBack said...

So if I said let's meet up for a grape soda at the County Fair, you would have? Or does your wife have a problem with sugary drinks and farmers too?

danbackhaus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin Scheunemann said...


I think its the quality time I would take away from my wife and the kids at the county fair to spend with you, would be the issue.

I bet we could get into a 3-4 hour political discussion, easy.

While quality time with you I'm sure is important, I don't think I could make that sale to my wife!