How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[Tyger]

The below article is 4 years old. A great deal more can be added since in 2013 he published the 97% Consensus paper that has so many deniers in full blown cardiac arrest. The sum of the push back tries to posit Cook and his website as arguing opinions rather than science. There is enough on the internet - since the 2013 97% 'event' to be garnered by any google - so have at it, as Pixelsmith is apparently urging. Because - after all - this has to be about a person not the science. At all costs. It's called disinformation.

Skeptical Science Founder John Cook; Climate Science from ‘Basic … to Advanced’
Bud Ward — December 2, 2010
LINK: Skeptical Science Founder John Cook; Climate Science from ‘Basic … to Advanced’ | Yale Climate Connections

 

[pixelsmith]

You could also search for good things about Hitler.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Google John "Cook the books" Cook Or are you scared of what you will find?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked
The survey by Australian global-warming activist John Cook, released recently with a massive media sendoff, is rapidly melting, as scientists and statisticians subject it to analysis. And now it's leaking out that Cook’s e-mails show he was scheming on this fraudulent survey to promote a leftist political agenda for well over a year. Cook made a big media splash in May with the publication of a study by him and several co-authors claiming to prove that climate scientists overwhelmingly support the theory that human activity is warming the planet to dangerous levels. Cook’s claims received their biggest boost on May 16, when President Barack Obama tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

The mainstream media and climate-alarmist blogosphere uncritically accepted the Cook study and trumpeted the consensus claims as gospel. We reported on May 21 (" Global Warming 'Consensus': Cooking the Books" ) on the critiques of the Cook study by experts who show that Cook cooked the data. Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent. Moreover, as we reported, the Cook study was flawed from the beginning, using selection parameters designed to weight the outcome in favor of the alarmist position.

In a May 22 follow-up article ( "Climate 'Consensus' Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report" ) The New American reported on additional problems with the Cook study and cited a large and growing list of eminent climate scientists — including Nobel Prize recipients and scientists who served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — who challenge the claim that there is any “scientific consensus” on climate change, or that “the science is settled” in favor of the Al Gore alarmist position.

Oops! Guess We Forgot Those

Now comes another devastating analysis of Cook's cooked data from a big name in the climate science community: Professor Richard S. J. Tol. Dr. Tol is a professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and a professor of economics at the University of Sussex, England. He has also served on the UN’s IPCC.

Dr. Tol has statistically deconstructed the 97 percent consensus myth of Cook et al.

Professor Tol utilizes four graphs to demonstrate the biased methods utilized by the Cook team to skew the results of their “research.” One of the major “errors” of the study (whether intentional or the result of incompetence) was the use of the term “global climate change” to search the scientific database for papers that were included in the 12,000 tabulated by Cook and his co-authors.

In his first graph, Dr. Tol points out that by including “global” before “climate change,” Cook et al “dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.”

In his second graph, Dr. Tol demonstrates that by including “global” before “climate change,” the supposedly authoritative Cook study conveniently “dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.” And Tol lists around 50 of those researchers who were “dropped.” These, of course, represent only a small sampling of the thousands of scientists who have expressed various levels of disagreement with the hysterical climate pronouncements of the IPCC, Al Gore, and John Cook.

Tol’s third graph shows that by including “global” before “climate change” the Cook team “dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.”

In his fourth graph, Dr. Tol shows that the Cook team also skewed the results of their findings by the database they chose to draw papers from, using the Web of Science (WoS) rather than SciVerse Scopus. “Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution,” Tol observes.

Another E-mail Scandal Reveals Cook’s "97 Percent" Scam

Populartechnology.net has posted e-mails from John Cook’s Skeptical Science website concerning what Cook calls “The Consensus Project” or TCP. The e-mails, from early 2012, reveal the huge promotional campaign Cook was rolling out to publicize the consensus study — before he had even done the study. It is also evident from the e-mails that Cook knew he was cooking the data to reach a preconceived conclusion. In his "Introduction to TCP" e-mail of January 19, 2012, Cook explains to team members:

It's essential that the public understands that there's a scientific consensus on AGW [anthropogenic (man-made) global warming]. So Jim Powell, Dana and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus. Deniers like to portray the myth that the consensus is crumbling, that the tide is turning.

Right from the get-go, it is apparent that Cook is planning to cook up a “game changing” study that will prove the “scientific consensus” he wants the public to accept. Typical of Cook and activists of his ilk is their use of “deniers” when referring to their opposition, an attempt to smear scientists who hold different opinions by equating them with Nazi holocaust deniers. It is hardly the mark of professional civility and collegiality one expects from true scientists.

Cook’s “Introduction” admits that “TCP is basically an update and expansion of Naomi Oreskes' survey of the peer-reviewed literature with deeper analysis.” That is an interesting admission, since the 2004 Oreskes study — which was the original source for the 97 percent claim — was exposed for the same methodological flaws. Dr. Benny Peiser, a social science professor at John Moores University and visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham, eviscerated the Oreskes study, pointing out that Oreskes had falsified the so-called consensus by her faulty selection criteria in choosing papers to include in her survey. (See here and here .)

In his "Introduction to TCP," Cook acknowledges that probably only half of the 12,000 papers they’ve selected will either explicitly or implicitly endorse AGW alarmism. But over time, he expects online volunteers to “process” many of the 6,000 non-endorsement papers, “converting” them into endorsements! Here’s Cook:

I anticipate there will be around 6000 "neutral" papers. So what I was thinking of doing next was a public crowd sourcing project where the public are given the list of neutral papers and links to the full paper — if they find evidence of an endorsement, they submit it to SkS (Skeptical Science)…. Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers — and make regular announcements like "hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes."

Cook went on to sketch out an entire promotional campaign utilizing press releases, major media programs, booklets, Kindle/iBooks, blogs, etc. “We beat the consensus drum often and regularly and make SkS the home of the perceived strengthening consensus,” Cook advised.

At least one of the members of his team seems to have recognized that Cook had the emphasis all backwards. Ari Jokimäki responded:

I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don't even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).

"It's Official; We're All a Bunch of Leftists" — John Cook

The fanatical AGW commitment of Cook and his coauthors appears to be driven by their leftist ideological devotion. Populartechnology.net provides downloads from the Skeptical Science forum thread entitled, "Political Compass," in which frequent Skeptical Science commentators and moderators took a political quiz revealing (much to their mock surprise) they all share the same left-wing political ideology. "I'm a damn dirty commie," said Dana Nuccitelli, one of Cook’s coauthors, after seeing his quiz results.

Here are comments from some of the other SkS team members:

"OMG, I'm a closet Leftist!" exclaimed Daniel Bailey.

"It seems I am on par with Nelson Mandela," remarked “perseus.”

"I'm still something of leftie, despite all those years in business," said Andy S.

"The Criticisms of the Skeptics are right — SkSers are obviously all pinko/liberals," admitted Glenn Tamblyn.

"It's official, we're all a bunch of leftists," said John Cook.

“Consensus Drums” Aimed at Aiding UN Agenda

However, the fact that the claims of the Cook/Skeptical Science survey have been exploded as bogus and the fact that the Cook/Skeptical Science team have been exposed as self-described “commies,” “leftists,” and "pinko/liberals” haven’t stopped the MSM commentators from citing their fraudulent “research” as gospel. Incredibly, Prof. Eric Alterman of the left-wing Nation magazine cited the Cook survey in a June 4 posting on the left-wing ThinkProgress.org (" Think Again: Blame The News For The Public’s Ignorance About The Climate" ) to condemn the mainstream media for not being sufficiently alarmist when in comes to global warming!

Yes, we’ve only been marinating 24/7 for two decades in increasingly hysterical media predictions and pronouncements about the coming AGW apocalypse — and the American public still hasn’t bought the false “consensus.” However, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) now engaged in another conference in Bonn, Germany , and the UN’s IPCC set to release a new series of reports, we can expect that the Cooked-up consensus results will be cited endlessly. Or, as Cook himself put it: “We beat the consensus drum often and regularly.”



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

He is a fraud like BM. Read it and weep. I await your reply.

 

[pixelsmith]

I have tons more on him if you want it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Psychologist José Duarte writes: The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

Let’s go ahead and walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. I only spent ten minutes with their database — there will be more such papers for those who search. I’m not willing to spend a lot of time with their data, for reasons I detail further down.

This paper is vacated, as a scientific product, given that it included psychology papers, and also given that it twice lied about its method (claiming not to count social science papers, and claiming to use independent raters), and the professed cheating by the raters. It was essentially voided by its invalid method of using partisan and unqualified political activists to subjectively rate climate science abstracts on the issue on which their activism centers — a stunning and unprecedented method. I’m awaiting word on retraction from the journal, but I think we already know that this paper is vacated. It doesn’t represent knowledge of the consensus.

…

I want to note here that the authors are still misrepresenting their 97% figure as consisting of “climate papers”. For an upcoming event, Cook claims “They found that among relevant climate papers, 97% endorsed the consensus that humans were causing global warming.” Clearly, this is false. There is no way we’ll be able to call the above papers “relevant climate papers”. Don’t let these people get away with such behavior — call them out on it. Ask them how psychology papers can be “relevant climate papers”, raise your hand at events, notify journalists, etc. Make them defend, explicitly, what they did. Hopefully, it will be retracted soon. But until then, make them defend what they did. For one thing, Cook should now have to disclose how many psychology and other irrelevant papers were included. In a scenario where retraction wasn’t justified, they would have to rewrite the paper. In this case, the false statements, fraud, and absurd method mandate retraction, and some sort of penance.

…

Other raters, like Dana Nuccitelli, say it should count as “methods” (which might have excluded it), but that “It’s borderline implicit endorsement though, with all the ‘climate change denial’ phrases. If you read the paper I’d bet it would be an explicit endorsement.”

Nuccitelli thinks that if a psychology paper uses the phrase “climate change denial”, it might count as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. We should linger on that. This is a staggering level of stupidity with respect to what would count as scientific evidence of AGW. The implied epistemology there is, well, I don’t know that it has a name. Maybe it’s some kind of postmodernist view of reality being based on belief, anyone’s belief (except for the beliefs of skeptics) — perhaps a grotesque misreading of Kuhn. Even if we thought reality was best understood via consensus, it’s not going to be created by consensus, and the only consensus we would care about would be that of climate scientists. That Marxist or neo-Marxist sociologists pepper their paper with “climate change denial” does not add to our confidence level about AGW — it is not evidence of anything but the ideology of two American sociologists. It doesn’t test the energy balance model, or revise or validate or estimates of transient climate sensitivity. It has no input into our knowledge of AGW. In any case, I’m stunned by Nuccitelli’s behavior in these rater forum pages, and his behavior as a climate science writer – he and Jenny McCarthy should jointly surrender to some sort of authority.

…

I think some of you who’ve defended this “study” got on the wrong train. I don’t think you meant to end up here. I think it was an accident. You thought you were getting on the Science Train. You thought these people — Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky — were the science crowd, and that the opposition was anti-science, “deniers” and so forth. I hope it’s clear at this point that this was not the Science Train. This is a different train. These people care much less about science than they do about politics. They’re willing to do absolutely stunning, unbelievable things to score political points. What they did still stuns me, that they did this on purpose, that it was published, that we live in a world where people can publish these sorts of obvious scams in normally scientific journals. If you got on this train, you’re now at a place where you have to defend political activists rating scientific abstracts regarding the issue on which their activism is focused, able to generate the results they want. You have to defend people counting psychology studies and surveys of the general public as scientific evidence of endorsement of AGW. You have to defend false statements about the methods used in the study. Their falsity won’t be a matter of opinion — they were clear and simple claims, and they were false. You have to defend the use of raters who wanted to count a bad psychology study of white males as evidence of scientific endorsement of AGW. You have to defend vile behavior, dishonesty, and stunning hatred and malice as a standard way to deal with dissent.

…

Cognition is in large part categorization, and we need more categories to understand and sort people’s views and frameworks when it comes to fresh scientific issues like AGW. If our science category or camp includes people like Cook and Nuccitelli, it’s no longer a science category. We won’t have credibility as pro-science people if those people are the standard bearers. Those people are in a different category, a different camp, and it won’t be called “science”. Those climate scientists who have touted, endorsed, and defended the Cook et al. study – I suggest you reconsider. I also suggest that you run some basic correction for the known bias, and cognitive dissonance, humans have against changing their position, admitting they were wrong, etc. Do you really want to be on the historical record as a defender of this absurd malpractice? It’s not going to age well, and as a scientist, certain values and principles should matter more to you than politics.

If you’re always on the side of people who share your political views or aims, if you’re always on the side of people who report a high AGW consensus figure, no matter what they do, something is wrong. It’s unlikely that all the people who share your political perspective, or all studies conducted by them, are right or valid — and we know that in advance. We need more honesty on this issue, less political malice, better epistemology.

Read the full essay here: Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% - Jose L. Duarte


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Shall I continue to do your research for you?
I have tons more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Tyger? Are you there? I have at least 10 more posts I could provide exposing this bum. You want them all? Tyger? Hello?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Burnt? How about you weigh in on this hero of Tyger's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

This is tangent to climate change but this exemplifies what we are up against in the US. To describe this as idiocy isn't saying the half of it. That it actually got passed and is one Senate vote shy (and a presidential signature) of becoming the law of the land - read it and weep!

EPA Barred From Getting Advice From Scientists
November 22, 2014 | by Stephen Luntz
LINK: EPA Barred From Getting Advice From Scientists | IFLScience

TEXT: "A bill passed through the US House of Representatives is designed to prevent qualified, independent scientists from advising the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They will be replaced with industry affiliated choices, who may or may not have relevant scientific expertise, but whose paychecks benefit from telling the EPA what their employers want to hear.

"The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established in 1978 to ensure the EPA uses the most up to date and relevant scientific research for its decision making and that the EPA's programs reflect this advice. It has served in this role, most often uncontroversially, through 36 years and six presidents. If the new bill passes the Senate and wins presidential approval, however, that is about to change.

"It's hard to be against “balance”, which no doubt helped Rep Chris Stewart (R-Utah) gather 229-191 support for his bill H.R. 1422 to overhaul the way appointments to the SAB are made. Of the 51 members of the SAB, three come from the industries the EPA is regulating. Stewart wants more, saying, "All we're asking is that there be some balance to those experts…We're losing valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don't include them in the process."

"However, deeper investigation suggests the agenda involves more than getting input from a wider range of backgrounds. For one thing, the vote was largely on party lines with four Democrats supporting and one brave Republican opposed. Moreover, Stewart doesn't have much of a record for listening to genuine scientific expertise, considering 98% of qualified scientists' assessments irrelevant.

"Moreover, Stewart has made clear he doesn't believe the EPA should exist at all, calling for its scrapping because it “thwarts energy development”. Axing a body that ensures water is drinkable and air doesn't kill you is politically hard, but nobbling is easier.

"The legislation has been under consideration since 2013. At an early hearing on the bill Dr Francesca Grifo, previously director of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History testified, “Conflicts of interest threaten the integrity of science. Specifically, the objectivity of the members of an advisory committee and the public's trust in the advice rendered by that committee are damaged when a member of an advisory committee has a secondary interest that creates a risk of undue influence on decisions or actions affecting the matters in front of the committee.”

"The bill would prevent scientists from voting on the release into the environment of a chemical by their employers. Nevertheless, they would be allowed to vote to release a nearly identical chemical, Grifo notes, including some that would set a precedent that would be very useful to the company in future decisions.

"More insidiously, research scientists are barred under the act from advising on any topic that might “directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work”. In other words, the only people barred from advising the EPA on a particular chemical are those who have actually studied its toxicity or effect on the environment."

 

[pixelsmith]

No comment? Someone please PM Tyger and ask him to reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

Another pm so I have looked at Pixel's post. Hmmmm.......regarding the long quoted text in one of his recent posts - Pixel gives no live link to the text, so I had to search it out. I found it coming from something called The New American. LINK: The New American covers news on politics economy culture and more based on the U.S. Constitution so that freedom shall not perish. which itself is linked to a Facebook page The New American Magazine which appears to be the magazine of The John Birch Society. So there we have the trail of breadcrumbs.

The article - LINK: Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked
The author - LINK: The New American | Environment

Pixel, I am fine with whatever your political leanings are. I am interested in the science. If you could argue the science that would be nifty. Of course, maybe you can't, and that's okay, too. Maybe this is all about politics for you. At least be clear about that. If that is so, then we are at cross purposes - and really are ships passing in the night.

As for doing work, you appear to do nothing. You are the pre-eminent troll. You rise to the effort 'just enough' to get a response. This I am trying to explain to my pen-pal. If a one-liner will get you a response, that's what you'll deliver. If ad hominems will get the conversation stirred up, you'll do that. If you have to be polite and get some text copied and pasted, you'll do that - but it's a waste of my time to respond to you, for anyone to really. As you have demonstrated again and again with countless posters. Burnt has very adequately summed up the problem conversing with you. I'll let his comments stand.

John Cook is far from a lone voice.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming Paperback – May 24, 2011
by Naomi Oreskes Erik M. Conway

Amazon Book Review By Jesse Kornbluth (Journalist)
- Brilliant, devastating, disturbing --- at least as important as Bill McKibben's 'Eaarth', May 25, 2010
"I have read many books that infuriated me, and I was glad for the experience. It's good to get pissed off at injustice, fictional or real, and come away energized, eager to do your small part in correcting whatever wrong the book exposed. But although "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" is brilliantly reported and written with brutal clarity, it has left me with a different reaction --- frustration that lobbyists and "experts" have blocked all meaningful steps to avert environment disaster. And will continue to do so, not just until millions are afflicted with skin cancer and the wheat fields are bone dry and the poor are fighting in the streets for water. No. In the very last minute of the very last hour of humanity's very last day on earth, a scientist on the payroll of an oil or coal company --- most likely a scientist who has no expertise in environmental matters and whose scientific contributions ended decades ago --- will be saying there's "still doubt" about global warming.

"Naomi Oreskes is a real scientist and historian. She's Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego; her books include "Plate Tectonics: An Insider's History of the Modern Theory of the Earth," cited by Library Journal as one of the best science and technology books of 2002. A few years ago, she tired of the Bush administration's insistence that "most" scientists disagree with the notion of global warming, so she did what a real scientist does --- she read every single piece of science written on the subject to see what "most" scientists said about it.

"Not one of them called it a "theory." Her conclusion: "No scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a 'belief' to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries hereditary information or that quarks are the basic building blocks of subatomic matter. You can always find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclusions represent our best available science, and therefore our best basis for reasoned action."

"Her new book, written with science journalist Erik Conway, is about the absence of reasoned action --- and not just when the issue is global warming. The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn't get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists. Suddenly the issue had two sides. Better not to do anything until we know more.

"Truth in science is a process: research, followed by scientific writing, followed by peer review. In this way, mistakes are corrected, findings refined, validity confirmed. But the interests of scientists on the payroll of, say, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco wasn't truth. "They were not interested in finding facts," Oreskes and Conway write. "They were interested in fighting them."

"Here's the absolute stunner --- some of the scientists who were on the payroll of tobacco companies turn out to be the very same scientists now working for oil and coal companies to create confusion about global warming. Why you may ask, would scientists who once had impressive reputations pose as "experts" on topics which they have no history of expertise?

"Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer --- the most visible of the tobacco-causes-cancer and man-causes-global-warming deniers --- were both physicists. Long ago, Seitz helped built the atomic bomb; long ago, Singer developed satellites. Both were politically conservative. Both supported the War in Vietnam and politicians who were obsessed with the Soviet threat. Both were patriots who believed that defending business had something to do with defending freedom. And both were beneficiaries of the strategy that John Hill, Chairman and CEO of the Hill & Knowlton public relations firm, laid out for tobacco executives in 1953: "Scientific doubts should remain." The way to encourage doubt? Call for "more research" --- and fund it.

"You can imagine what this did to media coverage in our country. As early as the 1930s, German scientists had shown that cigarettes caused lung cancer. (No one smoked around Hitler.) By the early 1960s, scientists working for American tobacco companies agreed --- nicotine was "addictive" and its smoke was "carcinogenic." But the incessant call for more research and "balanced" journalism kept the smoking controversy alive until 2006, when a federal judge found the tobacco industry guilty under the RICO statute (that is, guilty of a criminal pattern of fraud.) Fifty years of doubt! Impressive.

" "The tobacco road would lead through Star Wars, nuclear winter, acid rain and the ozone hole, all the way to global warming," Oreskes and Conway write. The lay reader may want to read the tobacco stories, skim the middle chapters, and then re-focus on global warming, the subject of the book's second half. There you can thrill to the argument that the sun is to blame. Revel in the attacks on environmental scientists (they're all Luddites, and some are probably pinkos). See politics trump science. (The attack on Rachel Carson, who first alerted us to the dangers of DDT, is especially potent. In a novel, Michael Crichton had a character say, "Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler....It was so safe you could eat it.")

"Fifty-six "environmentally skeptical" books were published in the 1990s --- and 92% of them were linked to a network of right-wing foundations. As late as 2007, 40% of the American public believed global warming was still a matter of scientific debate. (It's not just Americans who are now addled. Just today, in the New York Times, I read that "only 26 percent of Britons believe that `climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,' down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.")

"I'm just dancing on the surface of this book's revelations. There's so much more, and it's all of a piece --- as the director of British American Tobacco finally admitted, "A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay, and usually the first reaction of the guilty."

"Well said, as far as it goes. When I finished "Merchants of Doubt," I felt a little more strongly about that guilt. I try to have compassion for the failings of others, hoping that they might have compassion for my failings, but I have trouble thinking that these scientists and the CEOs who hired them were misguided or confused or even blinded by the incessant need for profit. I now think there really is such a thing as Evil. In their book, Oreskes and Conway do a great public service --- they give us their names of the villains and tell us their stories."

 

[Tyger]

Please note Oreskes' comments at about 4:50 onwards about who got Republican politicians (in the US in the mid '00's) to shift their language from Global Warming to Climate Change......and the phrase 'scientific uncertainty' being used as a political strategy.

Merchants of Doubt. Naomi Oreskes

TEXT: "Published on May 2, 2013
Part 1 | Part 2 In this public lecture at the Global Change Institute (UQ), Naomi Oreskes sheds light on the organised and institutional forces that developed into the climate..."


Merchants of Doubt (p2). Naomi Oreskes

 

[manxman]

You dont need him to reply pixel, no-one of sound mind could ever think skeptcal science, actually has anything to do with science, its an activists board.

As for tyger merrily posting away unaware of the exposure of the report because he has you on ignore, is just a lovely lovely irony, thinks he is being cleverposting devastating reports, but instead he is looking a proper proper mugg, and its all right there all in one lump.

He is like a child gloating, and genuinely thinks he is proving a 97% consensus, instead he shone a light on it, and achieved the reverse, and is blissfully unaware, i wish the irony could last for ever its so sweet.

 

[pixelsmith]

I have tons more on how they control the message boards and work behind the scenes to hide their dirty deeds. Tyger why not quit being a chicken by putting those with the truth on ignore? Pretty cowardly of you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

Give up Tyger. John Cook is a washed up cartoonist who is trying to cash in on the scam like Al Gore did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Sorry but again you say lots, you throw out a few ad ho miens, you more than flash your Greenpeace credentials, you slip in about how complicated it all is etc etc burnt, you tell me you believe a trace gas is going to cause CATASTROPHIC warming and climate change.

Yet you struggle to admit, to even say it, that your belief is faith based, it cannot be based on the current science, because you do admit science doesnt understand our climate systems well enough, you say it below.

Similarly, as I've outlined above, and as would any basic science textbook, the issue of how carbon works is also a highly complex, interconnected set of systems. One accepted model is that excess carbon production and an inability to remove that excess carbon can result in warming temperatures. However, as we study the planet's ability to breathe and take in excess carbon and repurpose it, and how the various positive and negative feedback loops work, we know that we still have a limited grasp on just how complex it all is.


My beef has never been with global warming, my beef is with the claim CATASTROPHIC warming, and CATASTROPHIC climate change.

Why ? Because its politically motivated bullshit.


No logical person could come to any other conclusion other than bogus claim after reading the emails between the top people from thr IPCC, of which the 2 beneath make my point, if you press the point i will post dozens of similar emails to make my point.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,”Jones writes in another newly released email.

Michael Mann
“I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

chart above 150 years of actual station readings.

Wheres the warming ?.


oh heres the warming, bogus just like the CATASTROPHIC label.

And to top it off, what should be every citizens right, to educate themselves, to be able to form educated opinions, is hidden away, they are above the freedom of information acts, your tax dollar paying their fat salaries and pension funds, paying to fly them pop star style to big important conferences all around the world, but you not allowed to see the data, just the results.

Being above the FOI acts, means NO scrutiny, which means they self peer review, and the money keeps flowing, and pinochio's nose just keeps on growing.

I tried to answer the issue of catastrophic as best as I could according to the current levels of knowledge that we have. Whether or not we go the route of catastrophe or not really is yet to be seen in terms of how that trace gas plays itself out. There certainly is a mystery as to where the carbon sink is. But again, you're a smart guy, so you should also be able to reason just how it is a trace of anything can in fact have radical effects on an organism. Just how much of trace snake venom, cyanide, or toxin of your choice are you willing to ingest? Just because it's trace does not mean it can't have significant impacts. This is global chemistry after all. It's sophisticated enough to give birth to us. It behooves us o learn more about it and not be so cavalier with the trace gasses and toxins we output.

Why do you think all the glaciers are melting?

But what I really don't understand is why you actually think there is some radical conspiracy to shake the populous down on green taxes in some weirdo global conspiracy led by many governments of the world? How does that make any sense at all? Really, when you look at the trillions of dollars banks shift around the world to increase their own profits, avoid taxes etc. there's much bigger fish to fry in terms of how you are getting screwed over. Green taxes are a drop in the bucket up against the real costs of environmental sabotage & human poisoning through our foodstuffs, additives to all products, pesticides, gasoline etc. When so many carcinogens have been sanctioned by the gmo industrialist profiteers, which really do have a direct impact on your quality of life, how is it a smart person like you can get so riled up on preventative measures to help keep the planet in balance?

 

[pixelsmith]

All the glaciers are melting? Can back that up with anything? Do you think there are new glaciers forming anywhere maybe? Btw- Glaciers are supposed to advance and retreat otherwise you would not be here. Lol

 

[manxman]

I tried to answer the issue of catastrophic as best as I could according to the current levels of knowledge that we have. Whether or not we go the route of catastrophe or not really is yet to be seen in terms of how that trace gas plays itself out. There certainly is a mystery as to where the carbon sink is. But again, you're a smart guy, so you should also be able to reason just how it is a trace of anything can in fact have radical effects on an organism. Just how much of trace snake venom, cyanide, or toxin of your choice are you willing to ingest? Just because it's trace does not mean it can't have significant impacts. This is global chemistry after all. It's sophisticated enough to give birth to us. It behooves us o learn more about it and not be so cavalier with the trace gasses and toxins we output.

I agree with virtualy every word, i would have used alot less
of them.


Why do you think all the glaciers are melting?

I dont think they are all melting, and i know theres more frozen water on the planet now than 10 years ago, and so do you, i posted the data.

But what I really don't understand is why you actually think there is some radical conspiracy to shake the populous down on green taxes in some weirdo global conspiracy led by many governments of the world?

I dont, i believe the claim catastrophic is bogus, no matter who makes it.

How does that make any sense at all?

Because its a fabricated scam, a political wedge, the claim of man made CATATROPHIC warming is bogus.

This is EXACTLY what george bush did, getting his terrorism bills passed, rousing speeches, ''your either with us or against us''

Same now, you either believe our outrageous sci ency claims, or your anti science and a denialist, filth for short.

Really, when you look at the trillions of dollars banks shift around the world to increase their own profits, avoid taxes etc. there's much bigger fish to fry in terms of how you are getting screwed over.

Banks dont claim human extinction thru man made gloal warming, why do you want to talk about banks ?.


Green taxes are a drop in the bucket up against the real costs of environmental sabotage & human poisoning through our foodstuffs, additives to all products, pesticides, gasoline etc.

I agree totally, but there again i like you dont live in a state that has gone all wind, and seen their bills rise 200% in 5yrs, if i did, i may think different.

When so many carcinogens have been sanctioned by the gmo industrialist profiteers, which really do have a direct impact on your quality of life, how is it a smart person like you can get so riled up on preventative measures to help keep the planet in balance?

Because the claim of man made CATASTROPHIC warming is bogus, thats why.
If there was anything remotely true about it, i would sing a different tune.