NY Times opinion writer/Warmist Anna North is very upset that people might be mislead by Skeptics, and inadvertently highlights that she, and other Cult of Climastrology members, have no problems lying, despite the headline
Why Misleading Americans About Climate Change Is Dangerous
Even as the Pope and some conservatives call for action on climate change, it remains common among Republican politicians to claim that the science on the issue is murky or inconclusive. The latest to take this position is Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.
As Josh Israel notes at ThinkProgress, Governor Kasich has been lauded by some for his relatively moderate comments in last week’s presidential debate — and in a TV appearance on Sunday, the governor acknowledged that “man absolutely affects the environment,†and pointed to reduced emissions and alternative-energy efforts in Ohio. However, he also said that the impact of humans on the climate was a matter of “legitimate debate,†and that “we don’t want to destroy people’s jobs, based on some theory that’s not proven.â€
In fact the overwhelming majority of research supports the reality of climate change — a 2013 review of nearly 12,000 scientific articles published between 1991 and 2011 found that of those that took a position on the issue, 97.1 percent endorsed the idea that climate change was real and human-caused. The study concluded that papers disputing climate change were “a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.â€
Citing a completely debunked paper (this is the John Cook one being cited), one which has even been debunked by people the paper cites as supporting a postion that Mankind is responsible for 50% or greater of the current warm period, is not a particularly strong position. Furthermore, the vast majority of the papers in that survey did not take a position/held that Mankind was not mostly/solely responsible.
Making Americans aware of this fact can have real effects. A study published earlier this year found that informing people of the scientific consensus on climate change “causes a significant increase in the belief that climate change is (a) happening, (b) human-caused and (c) a worrisome problem. In turn, changes in these key beliefs lead to increased support for public action.â€
“Even a single, simple description of the scientific consensus significantly shifted public perceptions of the consensus and subsequent climate change beliefs and desire for action,†write the study’s authors. “A concerted campaign to inform the public about the scientific consensus would ideally involve numerous exposures to the key message, conveyed by a variety of trusted messengers.â€
And, boom, right there, Ms. North, and, by extension, the NY Times, are advocating that people should be misled on the subject in order to get them to change their minds. Well, really, they are advocating straight up lying to people.
Unfortunately, climate change deniers are doing the exact opposite — repeatedly misinforming the public by painting climate change as scientifically controversial, when in fact it’s anything but.
The problem here, of course, is that throwing out a one-liner about the 97% consensus is much easier than explaining why the study is a complete pant load, a work of fiction. Short talking points repeated ad nauseum are easier to believe than complicated rebuttals. And that’s the way they want it.
But, Warmists don’t want it enough to change their own lives. Just Other People’s lives.
Teach,
And boom, right there, you forgot to include “the lie” you accuse them of telling.
97% a lie? Hardly. Cook’s paper is only debunked in the “minds” of Deniers. Subsequent papers support the figure, with a recent paper finding over 99% of peer-reviewed papers recognizing the fact of man-made global warming. Almost all climate scientists and physical scientists recognize that our CO2 emissions are causing the Earth to warm. So, how can telling people that fact be a lie?
Often times facts appear as lies to the willfully ignorant.
Zealots often dig in their heels, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. Charitably, that’s what I assume you are doing. The alternative conclusion is that you are an outright liar, willfully misleading your loyal followers.
I DO understand your predicament – having to find outrageous claims to feed your troops to keep them all riled up for god, guns and gubmint – but how can you look in the mirror or sleep at night?
Do you really make enough dough off this enterprise to sell your integrity?
And the AGW crowd has over the years made sure that true believers sit in the peer review panels ensuring every paper “FOR” agw is approved and that 99 percent “against” agw is debunked.
This is like having the GOP national committee investigate WMDS in Iran. or the DNC investigate Hillary’s email scandals.
Peer review today when it comes to AGW papers is a joke of monsterous proportions.
97% would be those making money and/or a living pushing this fiction.
As for informing the public about the “consensus”, it seems to work using polling to change public attitudes about other subjects. Problem is, it hasn’t worked for the global warming/change industry.
They’d be more successful if they practiced what they preach.
That’s just hogwash. A well-written, well-experimented paper falsifying the theory of AGW would make for a very famous scientist. Scientists thrive on debunking theories! Remember the nonsense surrounding homeopathy, with their hypothesis of water memory? Debunked by science. Homeopathy proposes that putting a chemical (medicine) into water, then making serial dilutions until there can be no statistical chance of even one molecule of the chemical remaining still yields an effective medicine. Their hypothesis was that the chemical induced a restructuring of the interactions of the water molecules.
On hockey sticks, Michael Mann, freedom of speech, fraudulent climate science, Nobel prizes, D.C. courts, amicus briefs and more;
https://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/video-mark-steyn-gives-a-hilarious-speech-on-global-warming-at-the-heartland-institute/
Here’s the deal Jeffy, “science” and “consensus” do not belong in the same sentence. Here’s how science works since you seem to believe opinion and science are the same thing.
1. Make a guess
2. Calculate the real world consequences of that guess
3. Compare the result of that calculation to nature with experiment to see if it works
4. If your guess disagrees with experiment, you are WRONG!!
You don’t make excuses like “oh, all of that heat we’re not finding must be hiding in the oceans somehow” or any other bs that you warmists use to fool yourselves.
Al Gore set the standard when he wrote in his first book that it is OK to lie to the people about the environment if it is for their own good.
Jeff,
As long as we are comparing issues that have been debunked. As I have said, low cholesterol diets have been debunked. All scientist accepted cholesterol as a major factor in CV disease. Now it has been found a fraud and has been found to have injured untold millions. That was supported by the government just like climate science, in fact, it was the template for your religion. That is why people are skeptical. Then the other reason is using climate to change our way of life, despite the fact that all involved readily acknowledge that it will do nothing to the climate.
You mean like M. Mann and his hide the decline? The Hockey stick?
Michael Mann replied:
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literatureâ€. Obviously, they found a solution to that — take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research†as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
You mean like Briffa?
The third involved Briffa’s actions as the editor of Holocene. In an email dated 4/6/2003, Briffa wrote:
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review — Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting — to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
Horton wrote:
Authors and reviewers are frequently passionate in their intellectual combat over a piece of research. The tone of their exchanges and communications with editors can be attacking, accusatory, aggressive, and even personal. If a research paper is especially controversial and word of it is circulating in a particular scientific community, third-party scientists or critics with an interest in the work may get to hear of it and decide to contact the journal.
Thanks for making my case for me.
Kenny typed:
You couldn’t be more wrong. For any hypothesis, as supportive evidence accumulates, a consensus amongst the scientists develops. You do know that theories are never proven, but can only be falsified. For example, gravity is an unproven theory with no proven mechanism, but clearly there is a consensus that gravity is real.
Can a consensus be wrong? Of course! dave inarticulately describes the cholesterol theory of heart disease as falsified, and he may be correct, in part. Dietary cholesterol has little effect on plasma cholesterol (which has been known for a long time) while trans-fats and saturated fats do. Statins reduce all-cause mortality in patients with heart disease but have not been shown to reduce all-cause mortality in patients at lower risk for heart disease. How did the medical community come to this new consensus? Experiments, meta-analyses and clinical trials.
The ACC and AHA recommended new guidelines for the use of statins, describing 4 groups that should receive the cholesterol lowering drugs: Existing CV disease, LDL > 190 mg/dL, Type 1 or 2 diabetes (over 40 yr old), > 7.5% risk of CV disease in next 10 yrs based on population data.
Liam,
All the great research falsifying AGW can be published all over the internet for review. The skeptic scientists can bypass peer review and still publish any “suppressed” evidence. Where is it?
Skeptic scientist Dr. Judith Curry published over 80 papers between 2000-2011 (only period available). She has a blog, writes editorials and testifies before Congress. It’s her opinion that AGW is not as bad as predicted, but she can’t falsify the theory. The physical world refuses to cooperate!
Skeptic scientist Dr. John Christy (UAH) has published 30 papers, often in prestige journals Science and Nature. He too testifies before Congress but has yet to falsify the theory of AGW.
Former skeptic scientist Dr. Richard Muller (UCBerkeley), as recently as 2011, did not trust the surface temperature record and believed that AGW was not valid. So he did experiment after experiment, creating the BEST dataset expecting to show how thermometer station siting accounted for most of the “warming”. After evaluating all the data with the eye of a skeptic he concluded that the Earth is warming and from greenhouse gases we add. Science!
Skeptic scientist Dr. Roy Spencer lists 30 publications on his blog, and claims there are many, many more.
The Willie Soon tragicomedy is well known.
“Can’t falsify the theory..” That’s funny, because the warmunists can’t prove the theory. Gee, which one come first..?
j,
Scientific theories are never proved. The evidence supporting the theory of AGW is overwhelming and it’s unlikely to be falsified. But never say never.
Do you think there is any chance that the theory of AGW is true?
global warming child abusers, planned parenthood child murderers … they seem to agree with each …. abuse, kill, lie … they must really like isis, oh wait a minute that brings religion into it
Friday morning links
Yellowstone park officials euthanize bear that killed hiker How Killing Elephants Finances Terror in Africa Federal court throws out scheme allowing windmills to kill bald and golden eagles for the next 30 years Can Maine Lead New England to a
You once again are arguing apples and oranges.
The data support a warming planet. The data support increases in co2.
The AGW peer review all point to cause and effect and any paper written that attempts to disprove that is debunked by the peer review boards.
Cause and effect are only theories and not scientific evidence. Given that there are 100 million variables to the weather and heat retention the causation is the debate.
Unfortunately YOU cannot seem to grasp this fact because your too busy being angry about “what ever it is that your angry about”.
The point you willfully miss is that YOU DON’T NEED PEER REVIEW BOARDS! Publish your evidence that falsifies the theory! Make a case with evidence and data and the scientists and policymakers will follow. Drs. Christy, Spencer and Curry frequently testify before Congress without being oppressed by a peer review board. If your side has evidence falsifying the theory of AGW, by all means present it!
Your (and Denialists in general) argument depends on the existence of a massive conspiracy among scientists, governments and NGOs to control the Earth’s peoples. That’s hardly science.
Then you project your own lack of scientific discipline on your opponents. You project the fact that your side is pushing a political agenda onto your opponents.
Your side has lost the scientific argument. The Earth is warming because of CO2 we’ve added and continue to add to the atmosphere. The argument is about what, if anything, to do about it.
IF this is true…..then were all going to die…….why is it that no one seems to give a flying flip about it and have banned fossil fuels and demanded a billion wind turbines be built and a zillion electric cars….
Why not a manhattan project?
Again your simple claim is co2 is causation of global warming…..98 percent of the world agrees that were all going to die……….
Yet you do nothing except troll websites attempting to antagonize deniers rather then actually fixing the problem.
Thats why your a troll………You do not find me on a leftist website that believes in AGW because whats the point…….98 percent of the world believe its life threatening……..
YET NOTHING is being done because your own billionaires make sure of that……your own groups make sure all alternatives are held up all the while screaming chicken little.
The balls in your court if the science is settled…………FIX IT!
FIX IT!
SAVE US!
Stop trolling us!
Papers have been published that are routinely assassinated by the AGW crowd before they are even printed.
Again its not about denying 2 things…..the planet is heating and co2 is rising…….
The question is that in any modelling the AGW crowd must take into account 1000’s of variables and some they just plain ignore to arrive at the inescapeable conclusion that it is co2 and only co2 that is causing the rise of temperature in the world.
This alone with so many variables renders any scientific paper suspect when those varibles are routinely dismissed to keep the focus on co2.
jeff,
Even when you try to give scientific rebuttal, you fail. I would love to see the article in which statins reduce “all cause mortality”. They certainly have been found to reduce a second MI, but not a primary. Per the ACC, a 40% reduction in cholesterol will not have any impact on prognosis. Now, look up the Jupiter trial and you will see that reduction of cholesterol with statins had no impact on disease. However, in those patients that have markers of inflammation, statins reduce MI by 3% per year. In short, that is within the realm of statistical error.
Now, look up the authors of any positive statin study and you will find a very interesting fact, they all, to a man, are employed by drug companies like yours. They general report about 50 to 100, 000 dollars per year of revenue from these companies and the companies write the article for them, which his a major deal in academic medicine. I have not even touched the complications of statins which are underplayed to a major degree.
This is all the exact same pattern in play for the climate religion.