.

Gov. Brown Launches Website on Dangers, Deniers of Climate Change

The website says a small group of “deniers” continues to distort the facts about climate change.

California Gov. Jerry Brown has launched a new website that addresses climate change and labels critics of the existence and cause of climate change as “deniers.”

The website appears on the governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s website and is titled “Climate Change Just the Facts.” According to a press release from Brown’s office, the site “documents the dangerous effects of global warming and calls on those who still deny its existence to ‘wake up and honestly face the facts.’ ”

The website was launched as the annual Lake Tahoe summit was held this week.

“Global warming’s impact on Lake Tahoe is well documented. It is just one example of how, after decades of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humanity is getting dangerously close to the point of no return,” Brown said in the press release. “Those who still deny global warming’s existence should wake up and honestly face the facts.”

The website links to four pages addressing issues related to climate change:

The Climate Science

The Scientific Consensus

The Deniers

Common Denier Arguments

The website says the scientific community has concluded that the burning of fossil fuels by humans has emitted enough greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to cause climate change.

A “small but vocal group” of “deniers” has been successful in spreading enough misinformation about the science behind climate change that only 51 percent of Americans are concerned about climate change, according to the website.

What do you think about this website and the use of the word, "deniers?" Tell us in comments.

Donald Sonck August 21, 2012 at 08:39 PM
You just helped me make my case, Michael. Point # 1: So what if these are "national academies"? I can forward you links to dozens of scientists and think tanks that refute man-made global warming. #2: "strong theoretical evidence"? Anyone can "theorize" based on how he/she wants to twist the evidence. There is also "strong theoretical evidence" of the existence of Atlantis, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster.....but where's the REAL, irrefutable proof? 3. "It's complicated". Agreed, which is why all of the global warming alarmists cannot possibly be so certain that man is causing the current alleged warming. 4. "Humans can take down mountains.......humans can make lakes." Yes indeed; with technology and within a couple of years; there's no evidence man can do so over a couple of centuries by means of green house gas emissions. 5. Yes, my mind is made up....but I enjoy a good-natured debate! And we should do all we possibly can to reduce pollution and promote re-cycling, but not at the expense of job creation, curtailing economic growth/innovation, and causing unnecssary alarm to the populace.
Michael Tobis August 21, 2012 at 09:06 PM
In short 1) you don't believe that scientists can recognize the best scientists among them 2) you don't believe that science even works 3) you don't believe empirical evidence you don't like 4) you don't believe "there's any evidence" of something where there are thousands of pages of evidence and 5) there really is really no way to convince you of anything at all. So what, exactly, is the point of a "good-natured debate"?
klem August 22, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Donald is correct. The earth’s climate changes whether humans exist or not, it has always changed, it changes today and will continue to change. The data supporting human causation is derived from proxy research, in other words, temperature data derived from tree rings and swamp sludge, hardly reliable and not accurate. But yet, researchers claim to get earth’s temperature measured down to the tenths of a degree, using tree rings, ha! In truth, true global temperature measurements only go back to 1979, with the use of satellites. When it comes down to it, all the alarmists really have is a correlation, between temperature and CO2. That’s it, everything else is fluff. My question is, how long must climate alarmists observe normal climate variability before they will finally get the backbone to admit they have been observing normal climate variability?
klem August 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM
I don't know, this looks like a good natured debate to me; You are a believer in the climate alarmist faith, he is a climate alarmist heretic. There is no way you are going to convert him to your faith, and there is no way he’s going to break you away from climate alarmism. You have to do that on your own, as many of us already have. cheers
Michael Tobis August 23, 2012 at 09:18 PM
I'm actually a scientist. I've been thinking about climate full time for twenty years. I see no "debate" here, just a refusal to look at the evidence, like the bishops who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. The argument is "if you ignore all the evidence, there is no evidence". That is true, but it doesn't prove anything at all. Not about whether greenhosue gas emissions are bad, but not about if they are OK. You are choosing blindness. "Debate" in science is not like debate in politics. You don't line up on opposite sides and argue with each other. You change sides. You try really hard to see things from the other person's point of view. But in newspaper discussions like this, you see people trying very hard NOT to see the other person's point of view. I ask you what your evidence is, and you tell me I don't have any. But you have no idea what evidence I have. None whatsoever, and more to the point, you show no sign of caring. I guess we have to disagree on who is being dogmatic here.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »