Another Democrat Big Lie: The global warming consensus

Give them credit. They're expert liars. Don't make a fucking fool of yourself by attacking the source.
---------------------------------------------
At last, we have a peer-reviewed paper that accurately surveys how much support there is for anthropogenic global warming among relevant scientists. And the news isn’t good for Al Gore, nor for Barack Obama, who sees climate change as our number one national security threat.

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."

"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."

The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.

Read the rest here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/the_global_warming_consensus_that_isnt.html

When everyone you know...



... knows that it is true, it is not a lie. ACT NOW! We have only six months left!

The fact that used used the American Thinker link instead of the imbedded link to the actual source in the article proves that this is nothing more than a partisan lie.


SIX MONTHS MILES!

Democrats love lies like an addict craves drugs.

4est_4est_Gump said:

When everyone you know...



... knows that it is true, it is not a lie. ACT NOW! We have only six months left!

Click to expand...

Libs cling to the GW myth like Islamonazis do the Koran.

No, they love the truthiness of their feelings and concern.

Kant taught them that nothing is real and Hegel taught them that if they throw irrationality at truth, then there is a middle-ground that is even more true than truth itself, because you Kant know the truth...



You Kant handle the truth!

miles said:

Libs cling to the GW myth like Islamonazis do the Koran.

Click to expand...

It gives them a superior enemy to fight which makes their fight more noble.

They are fighting to save the planet.

We are fighting our fear...

Hey Disgustapieceofshit - help save the planet. Kill yourself.

Which source American Thinker or Friends of Science? The most humorous coupling I have ever seen, as one is no friend to science and found it hard to get funding after a scandal showed their money came right from the oil industry, and the other does anything but promote critical thinking.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/friendsofscience-organization-do-not-fucking-love-science

"FriendsOfScience" Organization Do Not Fucking Love Science



At the end of the day, which group seems like the one with the agenda? The diverse group of the majority of scientists from around the world who collect and interpret data under limited budgets and who just so happen to agree on several major points? Or the group with ties to the petroleum industry that admits to pushing a particular slant on scientific data that is advocating against environmentally-responsible policy, which would hurt said petroleum industry?

This billboard’s content is complete nonsense.

Click to expand...

It's sad, even for miles, to have to preemptively strike against smart people about a source of a story. That's how bad its got.

I wonder how much American Thinker pays it's spam trolls?

*chuckle*

And those researchers who are lavished with funding by government, they do not produce the results government desires...



They're the only people you can trust.

And once more we are treated to an attack based on the source of funding as opposed to the quality of the work produced.

I doubt that the paper was read in its entirety, and most especially the linked references.

Ishmael

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.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Show us the errors of math please.

Well sir you would be incorrect. I read the article and several others about Friends of Science. Have you?

Ishmael said:

And once more we are treated to an attack based on the source of funding as opposed to the quality of the work produced.

I doubt that the paper was read in its entirety, and most especially the linked references.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

None of the paper was read.

These people do not have the necessary tools and training to read and digest real Science, so they stick to pop science.

Aglaopheme said:

Well sir you would be incorrect. I read the article and several others about Friends of Science. Have you?

Click to expand...

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.

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. We also do extensive literature research on these scientific subjects. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.

Our major environmental concern is the significant shift in recent years away from the important emphasis of previous decades on continual reductions in air and water pollution, to focus almost exclusively on global warming. The current obsession with global warming is misguided in that climate fluctuations are natural phenomena and we suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control.

We do not represent any industry group, and operate on an extremely limited budget. Our operational funds are derived from membership dues and donations, contributing to the educational work we are doing in the field of science. We work to educate the public through the dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective information on Climate Change, and to support real environmental solutions.

Friends of Science values your input, either on the science or policy of global warming. And, if you’re as concerned as we are about global policy based on weak science, please join us to spark a national and international debate on global warming.

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1#sthash.rXON86dP.dpuf


But that's not what your "sources" claim.

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...

Prove it.

4est_4est_Gump said:

Prove it.

Click to expand...

Prove they don't take corporate funding.

4est_4est_Gump said:

None of the paper was read.

These people do not have the necessary tools and training to read and digest real Science, so they stick to pop science.

Click to expand...

Prove none of the paper was read.

You mean prove it again?

http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/16/friends-of-science-theyre-back/

Grant History
$100,000 11/15/2005 University of Calgary
$100,000 03/15/2006 University of Calgary
To support academic research in the science of climate change

$25,000 06/07/2007 University of Calgary
<$25,000> 09/10/2007 University of Calgary returned
This donation was returned due to U of C investigation that found the funds supported a partisan viewpoint on climate change.

The timing of the first two “academic research” grants, totaling $200,000, indicates clearly that they were directed to support the above-mentioned activities of Morten Paulsen (i.e. the Ontario ad campaign in 2005-6 and lobbying efforts in 2006).

Click to expand...

http://www.desmogblog.com/why-are-there-so-few-friends-of-science

https://m.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/26/222130/-

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science

In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3] The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding. [4] [5]


In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change" and had returned unspent grant money on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement. As a consequence, the University advised FoS "that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf", according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007. On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that U of C officials had shut down Cooper's "'Research on Climate Change' trust account", and were about to advise Elections Canada of the University's ongoing review of the matter.

Click to expand...

Poor, poor miles, AJ & Ishtard. 2016 is already shaping up badly for them.