COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Another Democrat Big Lie: The global warming consensus

4est_4est_Gump said:
Exactly. Unbiased articles about Friends of Science and how wrong they are.

Here's an idea, post the links to these articles and let us see how unbiased their source is and how they discredited the statistical reviews of the claims by the government-funded researchers.

;) ;)
Click to expand...

You mean the unbiased university that gave FoS the grant?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

The serious charge comes from the CBC, a government-funded entity.

Other serious charges also come from proponents of man-made climate change.

So there you have it. You say that you've impeached them, but your only sources are, themselves impeachable (and in line with my earlier remarks about funding).

What is lacking is any examination of their Science by their critics, many of them very vested in the science that has been statistically reviewed, probably because they are not Scientists themselves...
 
Okie dokie, I guess the university actually returning the unused grant funds means nothing. :D

Solider on AJ!
 
Aglaopheme said:
A letter from the university.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a4/FOS_UofC_Email_3.pdf
Click to expand...

Again, someone with, as we say out here in the boonies, a dog in the fight.

Now, let us examine your treasure mine of links to the truth, Sourcewatch.

"CMD was founded in 1993 by progressive writer John Stauber in Madison, Wisconsin. Lisa Graves is president of CMD.[2][9] Author Sheldon Rampton was formerly an editor of PR Watch."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy

:rolleyes:

Clearly a disinterested third-party. :nods:
 
AJ has a "dog in the fight" of a junk science group from Canada funded by Uni grants?

Oh. Ok.
 
Now, show me the faults in their actual analysis...

Will sourcewatch have that information at your fingertips?
 
And AJ, looky what else that wiki link you posted says straight from FoS' mouth:

ce has close links to the oil and gas industry.[40] In April 2007, The Friends of Science newsletter claimed their "efforts to bring balance to the climate change debate are being restricted because of our lack of funding. We have mostly relied upon the good nature of our members, with some contributions from Charitable Foundations. There has also been some funding from “big oil”. But they seldom smile on us. They appear to believe that marketing is more important than historical climate information."[41]
Click to expand...
 
Aglaopheme said:
Let's see what should we take more seriously into consideration a global movement or a little group in Canada funded by the fossil fuel industry that is trying to get the party they want elected to office?
You make the call.
Click to expand...

There is NO global movement. There are governments, and especially the UN, who are in it for the purposes of acquiring power and money with small groups of highly vocal activists scattered about. Survey after survey after survey show that "Global Warming" is barely a blip on the public's radar.

The government connection is a no brainer. The government that controls your access to, and use of, energy along with your health care is essentially in control of every facet of your life. Any citizen that calls themselves "free" under such circumstances is engaged in serious self-delusion.

The UN has been seeking ways of imposing a form of global taxation since the 1970's. They want a source of revenue not tied to membership payments. In other words they want to become self-funding. They see the "Global Warming" fiasco as a means of achieving this goal.

Neither the various governments nor the UN's intentions are altruistic.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
There is NO global movement. There are governments, and especially the UN, who are in it for the purposes of acquiring power and money with small groups of highly vocal activists scattered about. Survey after survey after survey show that "Global Warming" is barely a blip on the public's radar.

The government connection is a no brainer. The government that controls your access to, and use of, energy along with your health care is essentially in control of every facet of your life. Any citizen that calls themselves "free" under such circumstances is engaged in serious self-delusion.

The UN has been seeking ways of imposing a form of global taxation since the 1970's. They want a source of revenue not tied to membership payments. In other words they want to become self-funding. They see the "Global Warming" fiasco as a means of achieving this goal.

Neither the various governments nor the UN's intentions are altruistic.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

And that is exactly what the paper demonstrates, but its detractors here will not read it, probably because they cannot understand it, but their usual sources have alerted them to the fact that it carries a dangerous message for their cause, so they look long, deep and hard for a reason to discount without reading.

Like I said long ago this morning they Kant-handle the truth and their emotional attraction to saving the world matters more than due diligence and study. Like, I mean, who has time for that when you're, like, you know, making a real difference in the world unlike those ugly old deniers...

;) ;)
 
No one has to show proof of anything as long as they agree with AJ. Otherwise, he'll whine about proof even though it's been shown to him over & over again.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
And that is exactly what the paper demonstrates, but its detractors here will not read it, probably because they cannot understand it, but their usual sources have alerted them to the fact that it carries a dangerous message for their cause, so they look long, deep and hard for a reason to discount without reading.

Like I said long ago this morning they Kant-handle the truth and their emotional attraction to saving the world matters more than due diligence and study. Like, I mean, who has time for that when you're, like, you know, making a real difference in the world unlike those ugly old deniers...

;) ;)
Click to expand...

"Saving the World." What blind arrogance. The world will still be here long after the human race is gone.

Ishmael
 
Aglaopheme said:
Says the pro education cat. Ha!
Click to expand...

One can be against the elimination of all dissension to the liberal orthodoxy of the modern campus and its suppression competing ideas and still be, not only in favor of education, but possessing two degrees as well as being an armchair scholar of Economics (and thus, true Liberalism). The true anti-education types are those who attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable to the belief system that they have used to replace true scholarship.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
Again, someone with, as we say out here in the boonies, a dog in the fight.

Now, let us examine your treasure mine of links to the truth, Sourcewatch.

"CMD was founded in 1993 by progressive writer John Stauber in Madison, Wisconsin. Lisa Graves is president of CMD.[2][9] Author Sheldon Rampton was formerly an editor of PR Watch."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Democracy

:rolleyes:

Clearly a disinterested third-party. :nods:
Click to expand...

It's a letter from the university themselves. The very proof you asked for duck and weave.

*nods*

I would love to play more, but I have a 9:00 where I intend to put my education to good use against fine people such as yourself.

Have a brilliant day! :rose:
 
The only thing libs believe is the
pseudo-science that fits their agenda. Everything else is a lie to them,
regardless of the facts and supporting evidence. Their childlike denial
would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic.
 
Ishmael said:
"Saving the World." What blind arrogance. The world will still be here long after the human race is gone.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

And to most, I would say good riddance...

;) ;)

Note the arrogance of the kiss-off.

Not one lick of science.

:cool:
 
miles said:
The only thing libs believe is the
pseudo-science that fits their agenda. Everything else is a lie to them,
regardless of the facts and supporting evidence. Their childlike denial
would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic.
Click to expand...

B-b-b-b-but I have a letter from the academics supporting man-made glowball warning and once they discovered the direction of the science of this tiny, insignificant group, they found a quick exit from reality and mounted a smear campaign as to leave their liberal credentials completely untarnished!

Science be damned!

We're saving the world man!

Now, once we render our technology to a more primitive state, we're going to have to have a serious talk about population control and reduction...

;) ;)
 
She posted a letter from FoS themselves with the proof you asked. One day, when you clowns grow up, you'll give people credit they deserve. Until then, the handful of you children can throw tantrums on the Lit all day while the educated people evolve and flourish.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
B-b-b-b-but I have a letter from the academics supporting man-made glowball warning and once they discovered the direction of the science of this tiny, insignificant group, they found a quick exit from reality and mounted a smear campaign as to leave their liberal credentials completely untarnished!

Science be damned!

We're saving the world man!

Now, once we render our technology to a more primitive state, we're going to have to have a serious talk about population control and reduction...

;) ;)
Click to expand...

Whoa, slow down there sparky. Global 'wealth re-distribution' comes before that. I just can't wait to see the discussions on the formula to be used. On a per-capita basis? You can damn sure count on China's and India's support.

Ishmael
 
From the original post:

The widely cited figure of 97% of scientists supporting man made global warming theory has always been a fraud:

…a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."

It is possible for the first bolded statement to be correct. The IPCC declarations were and are a compromise. A scientist could hold a view about global climate change being made worse by human activity (NOT global warming which is a not the generally accepted term) and disagree with the IPCC declarations because those declarations are political, not scientific, statements.

The second bolded statement that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." could equally be true because of arguments about the definition of "catastrophic". Again - the lack of agreement could be based on a scientific viewpoint of a political statement.

So - the 97% could be true (actually unlikely to be because that was a political, not scientific statement) AND the lack of explicit agreement with the IPCC declarations could be made by most of the 97% without changing their position that climate change is being made worse by human activity.

They could also fail to agree on a specific "catastrophic view" without changing their position that climate change is being made worse by human activity.

The other dubious figure is the 1-3% of respondents. If most of those approached said "Sod off!" to a biased questionnaire instead of a reasoned reply; or those asked for their opinion were climate change deniers; then the figure could be correct.
 
Last edited:
Ishmael said:
Whoa, slow down there sparky. Global 'wealth re-distribution' comes before that. I just can't wait to see the discussions on the formula to be used. On a per-capita basis? You can damn sure count on China's and India's support.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

lol


I stand corrected.
 
oggbashan said:
From the original post:

The widely cited figure of 97% of scientists supporting man made global warming theory has always been a fraud:

…a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."

It is possible for the first bolded statement to be correct. The IPCC declarations were and are a compromise. A scientist could hold a view about global climate change being made worse by human activity (NOT global warming which is a not the generally accepted term) and disagree with the IPCC declarations because those declarations are political, not scientific, statements.

The second bolded statement that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." could equally be true because of arguments about the definition of "catastrophic". Again - the lack of agreement could be based on a scientific viewpoint of a political statement.

So - the 97% could be true (actually unlikely to be because that was a political, not scientific statement) AND the lack of explicit agreement with the IPCC declarations could be made by most of the 97% without changing their position that climate change is being made worse by human activity.

They could also fail to agree on a specific "catastrophic view" without changing their position that climate change is being made worse by human activity.

The other dubious figure is the 1-3% of respondents. If most of those approached said "Sod off!" to a biased questionnaire instead of a reasoned reply; or those asked for their opinion were climate change deniers; then the figure could be correct.
Click to expand...


If I were you, I would go to the original source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Today’s ‘Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale
Replies
13
Views
124
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
SugarDaddy1
The next big climate scare: Counting climate change deaths
Replies
1
Views
53
Fuzzy1975
F
V
There's a Little Black Spot on the Sun Today [remix]
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
964
phrodeau
phrodeau
I
Climate Crisis Is Dead;
Replies
20
Views
283
ll74
ll74
Rightguide
Global Warming To Global Cooling And Back To Global Warming
2
Replies
47
Views
838
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Back
Top