addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Climate Change, Global Warming, and Fossil Fuel Funded Deception

Sometimes we hear the expression “climate change skeptic”. Perhaps a decade or more ago, some critical thinkers we’re wary of the scientific consensus relating to human caused global warming.

Today, the time for genuine skepticism on this matter is past. Now only climate change deniers refuse to yield to the scientific consensus. In doing so they deny a wide body of scientific expertise and the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real, human caused and represents a genuine risk to humans and the environment.

A group that calls themselves the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change has released a new report titled “Climate Change Reconsidered II”. It was funded by fossil fuel interests and the Heartland Institute. The science is questionable at best, cherry picked and deceiving in the least. It was released at such a time to compete with the UN’s 5th Climate Assessment. For people who are not experts in the field, the Hartland Institute’s report has the power to mislead many people into thinking climate change has ceased being an important issue.

At next month’s meeting we plan on addressing some basic points from both reports. Our specific goal is to arm skeptics and critical thinkers with the tools to defend the real science of the matter and refute this new industry report that is bound to confuse and mislead.

Opens at 6:30 PM. Talk starts at 7:15 PM. No table service during talk.

Join or login to comment.

  • Vrindavan

    April 25, 2014

  • Arni H.

    I love an argument, and to engage in one with 'James' might be fruitful, but he denies us that pleasure by refusing to respond or engage with others here. I'm also unhappy with being besieged by so many posts, again without debate. I suggest his access be revoked.

    February 4, 2014

    • Brock L.

      Seconded. All I see is spam and junk journalism.

      February 4, 2014

  • Michael B.

    James, You're post below is typical of the denial mentality. It's the classic "Renewables will never work" argument. Perhaps you could take a look at what's happening in Germany. Renewables are growing rapidly and prices are in decline! The current rate is $0.121 per kw. I pay an average of $0.14 per kwh in China for coal and hydro generated electric. It also seems that you have not considered the net economic result. If for example UK electric bills are 10% higher, that money is not flushed out of the economy. It is spent and stays inside the UK economy. Can you say that about the money spent on Saudi Arabian oil?

    You're obviously passionate about this. I for one, would be delighted to see a well prepared, lucid presentation that demonstrates your position.

    November 4, 2013

    • Vivien T.

      Agree with David. Also, if you really do support your position, why don't you just use your real name? I don't understand. Also, instead of posting your arguments on this meetup group and filling our mailboxes with your messages, why don't you convince more people on your strong side of the argument instead of typing behind the computer as 'James' : a) take your arguments to a governmental organisation b) set up your own organisation and convince people to support your position c) As Michael said, make a solid argument at one of the meetups and respond to people properly. It's probably more constructive to spread your message across, since most of us here actually find your posts here a bit too long. Again, James, not sure whether you'll respond or even read this comment, but just thought I'll express my view regardless.

      November 22, 2013

  • Alvin C.

    My mistake to have responded seriously...... I belatedly found out I can mute a particular conversation while still getting notifications from other posts of this group. What a relief. I guess many of you have done the same already. I also see how ineffective this platform is for serious discussions.

    Seeing that there are actually that much effort spent on claiming global warming is a scam(or not man-made, or doesn't matter. Very few of them realized these claims contradict one another ), I at least understand why some people believed in certain things.

    November 16, 2013

  • Paul L.

    The fact that only a small amount of our energy comes from renewables should only encourage us to invest in renewables. That's a sign that increasing that percentage will have the desired effect on CO2.

    Using James's own logic, going from 3% to 30% seems like a smart move. Then let's go from 30% to 99%.

    As far as cost goes, let's consider the total cost and impact in the 50 to 75 year range.

    November 4, 2013

    • charles w.

      Little,, would love to get a cup of coffee sometime, Thanks Charles

      November 13, 2013

    • Brock L.

      Yes, James. Perhaps we can all go heckle from the back of the room, and throw unsupported claims and conspiracy theories at the presenter? Oh, wait. Claims for climate change are actually supported. And when we talk about the conspiracy to deceive people into thinking that climate change is a lie, we're also supported by facts. Never mind.

      November 13, 2013

  • Brock L.

    James, why are you inviting discussions, and then not responding to anyone? I'm sorry, but I have to call it rude and ignorant.
    Enough with the spam. Try having a conversation with someone. Your behaviour is not in keeping with the purpose of the group, and all you're doing for your cause is making deniers look like ignorant, spamming sheep.

    November 11, 2013

  • Brock L.

    Deniers are always going on about the 'climate change movement' saying that they have an agenda. I'm still puzzled as to what that agenda may be.
    We got a few buzz words the other night "Anti-human" and "Communist", but I'm still unable to make sense of this. Perhaps someone can explain this to us, without just another web link.

    Web link wisdom is for sheep.

    November 9, 2013

  • Fernando

    Thanks for the talk Mike. I want to share these articles with all of you regarding the CO2 impact of the meat industry.

    How much sacrifice are we all willing to make? I guess it probably depends on how much we care, and how much responsibility of our own actions we are willing to accept. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this

    November 3, 2013

    • Fernando

      Thanks for your interest in my past, James. Perhaps we should talk next time I see you.

      November 3, 2013

  • Michael B.

    Many thanks to all who came out last night. It was great to see old and new friends alike. For more commentary on the Heartland Institute's NIPCC report, you may find following article pretty interesting.

    October 30, 2013

  • Jason S.

    October 29, 2013

  • A former member
    A former member

    Sorry to miss it!

    October 29, 2013

  • Scott E.

    Doh! Another one that clashes with when I'm away.

    October 8, 2013

27 went

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy