Billionaires fund attacks on climate science

[logicalview]

That is a opinion piece, not a news article.

The poster asked for proof that the 98% number was manufactured. I provided irrefutable proof. Instead of disputing this proof, the poster attacked the source. There was no opinion SE re the manufactured consensus. Just facts.

[SurplusElect]

I provided irrefutable proof.

You posted a editorial piece published in a business magazine.

[logicalview]

You posted a editorial piece published in a business magazine.

That clearly laid out exactly how the 98% consensus lie was manufactured. Clearly the only angle is to bash the source, as the facts are clear. Of course the pro warmists are not going to publish this as it serves them no good to reveal how the consensus lie was manufactured. Any publication that had the integrity to do it would be black balled like so many before them, just as you and others are doing right now to Forbes and Matt Ridley. Its the only defense warmists have when presented with actual facts instead of hyperbole and lies.

[JLives]

LV is right. If you disagree with a link dispute the content, not the source. It helps keep the discussion on track.

[logicalview]

LV is right. If you disagree with a link dispute the content, not the source. It helps keep the discussion on track.

Thanks Jenny!

[WhenWhatWho]

That clearly laid out exactly how the 98% consensus lie was manufactured. Clearly the only angle is to bash the source, as the facts are clear. Of course the pro warmists are not going to publish this as it serves them no good to reveal how the consensus lie was manufactured. Any publication that had the integrity to do it would be black balled like so many before them, just as you and others are doing right now to Forbes and Matt Ridley. Its the only defense warmists have when presented with actual facts instead of hyperbole and lies.

What I can't buy into is their theory that is akin to lighting a campfire (carbon based fuels) in the morning and blaming the the day getting warmer (natural climatic cycles) because of it. Mean while totally ignoring the fact that the day before got warm also, and the day before, as well the next day will, as will the day after and so on.

I won't even mention the ...OMG...seasons. LOL

[SurplusElect]

LV is right. If you disagree with a link dispute the content, not the source. It helps keep the discussion on track.

John Kerry says that there is a global consensus on Global Climate Change in a speech.

The author of the editorial piece says his statements are based on 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey.

He provides no proof or data to back to his statement. This is his opinion. Does he have John Kerry's footnotes for the speech? Was June 9, 2012 the first time the statement that there was "global consensus on climate change" was made in public? If it was made prior to 2009 - what was the basis of those statements?

The author then summarizes that the wording of the original survey is flawed and does not agree with the results. He then quotes "other surveys" to which he agrees with the wording and results.

The author leaves out that a "two minute online survey" is not what scientific consensus actually is, and that world governments (like Germany who has invested billions of dollars) do no base their decision's or tax dollars on two minute online survey results, and neither do scientists who all have email addresses.

In summary, the author manufactures a lie (the global scientific consensus was based on a two minute online survey) - proves it's a lie (if scientific consensus was based on a two minute online survey, Wikipedia would become the new Harvard) - and while disproving certain surveys he doesn't agree with, he quotes other surveys that he does agree with. These agreeable surveys are worded correctly and are not flawed as the other surveys were, apparently.

Larry Bell, the author of the article is listed as a "Risk Manager" for the HollyFrontier Oil Corporation and also sits as a Director for Adams Resources & Energy. He occasionally writes for Forbes.

Legally (not editorially of course) that would place the author in a conflict of interest.


Personal note:

I appreciate the effort to keep the conversation on topic, however I find it painful that there is no distinction between a editorial piece and a actual news article.

On this basis, a poster can say that a drunken homeless man told them that god lived in his wisdom teeth, to which someone else could not bring up the source as a debating point to dispute the statement. This makes for a painful process.

I'd post more on the subject, but I've also got some factual data on the Holocaust sent to me by the local Neo Nazi troop to sift through after this post. I need to fly over to Poland and get some soil samples and get some DNA from a museum to prove these guys wrong, because factoring in bias and conflict of interest is low hanging fruit.

[JLives]

I will clarify. Feel free to debunk a source backed up with facts. Content is always up for debate regardless of the source. What I don't want to see is posts along the lines of "It's from a conservative blog, it's junk or The Tyee is full of left wing crap" (to loosely paraphrase) and that sort of thing. If it is backed up with some substance I won't remove it. I want to avoid debates of sources and stick to the topic at hand. I hope everyone understands.

[SurplusElect]

Totally understandable Jenny, I guess I'm slightly frustrated because after reading through that article bit-by-bit I feel like Piers Morgan after his Alex Jones interview. Standing up to crazy is exhausting.

I figured a environmental science piece written by a oil man published in a business magazine was good enough to show bias. I didn't mean to "carry it on" as far as it went. Noted.

[logicalview]

John Kerry says that there is a global consensus on Global Climate Change in a speech.

.

My apologies. If John Kerry says there is a consensus, then it must exist. Despite thousands of scientists who disagree, if John Kerry, a politician and failed Democratic presidential candidate, says that there is a "global consensus", without giving any proof to back this statement up, then it must be true.

There is no consensus, and the concept that there is one, has been completely and totally manufactured, and then perpetuated by politicians, bureaucrats and shysters. All for two reasons - money and power. I showed you how it was manufactured, the Forbes article lays it out perfectly. You've been duped.

[logicalview]

Standing up to crazy is exhausting.

.

For once we agree! There are no crazier zealots than those that are involved in the man-made climate change fraud. What I find hilarious (mostly as coping mechanism to deal with the same frustrations you have) is that there appears to be no limit on the crazy. The predictions and exagerations just keep spiraling upwards, and the accountability just never occurs. To see the ultimate in crazy, one needs to look no further than the founder of the hoax, himself, James Hansen. Here's what he said in 2009:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”

The guy is bat-poop crazy. And he heads a 4 billion dollar per year government-funded organization, dedicated to researching an issue that doesn't even exist. Who is crazier, Hansen, or the people continuing to write cheques to support him? I know that its frustrating for the warmists. You guys have to live in this democracy thing where everyone gets a say and also gets to question authority and even disagree when the answers we are getting to our questions don't stand up, and when we realize we are being deliberately lied to by people claiming to have our best interests at heart. Its tough having to prove that those billions of dollars you want from us taxpayers are actually going to do us some good. Frustrating even.

[SurplusElect]

My apologies. If John Kerry says there is a consensus, then it must exist. Despite thousands of scientists who disagree, if John Kerry, a politician and failed Democratic presidential candidate, says that there is a "global consensus", without giving any proof to back this statement up, then it must be true.

Some Guy says there is a global consensus....and then the rest if my post (which you obviously didn't read even though I took the time to post)

It doesn't matter who said it but you certainly had fun there, didn't you?. The author of the article you posted suggests that John Kerrys (or whomever) source was a two minute survey, but provides no source to back that statement up.

As I said :

He provides no proof or data to back to his statement. This is his opinion. Does he have John Kerry's footnotes for the speech? Was June 9, 2012 the first time the statement that there was "global consensus on climate change" was made in public? If it was made prior to 2009 - what was the basis of those statements?

The author leaves out that a "two minute online survey" is not what scientific consensus actually is, and that world governments (like Germany who has invested billions of dollars) do no base their decision's or tax dollars on two minute online survey results, and neither do scientists who all have email addresses.

I dissected your Forbes article down to its birthday suit and exposed it for the fluff piece that it is.

It was written by a risk manager that works for a oil company. Enjoy your day.

[logicalview]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... tem/11998-“climate-science”-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

More than 1,000 internationally renowned scientists have gone further; they have not merely signed a petition, but have made public statements challenging key claims of the AGW alarmists. Published in 2010, in a report by Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, this important collection of statements is an update of a similar report of 700 scientists’ statements published by Senator James Inhofe of the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. The 1,000+ lineup of scientists reads like a Who’s Who of the global scientific community. It includes:

Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics, Princeton University;

Dr. Leonard Weinstein, 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and presently a senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace;

Nobel Prize-winning Stanford University physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of the geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University;

Burt Rutan, renowned engineer, inventor, and aviation/space pioneer;

Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist;

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks;

Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark;

Dr. Ian D. Clark, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada. 

Here are some more guys who disagree with the manufactured consensus first created out of thin air by the AGU and now perpetuated by the shysters and scam artists still trying to push the AGW lie. Enjoy your day too! There's a gold star in it for you if you can respond without the usual red herrings/straw men phrases like "Koch Brothers", "Big Oil", Nazis, "Holocaust deniers" or "I must be right because this left-wing politician said in a speech I am right". Just facts would be nice. Thanks.

[SurplusElect]

You have no interest in actual debate. Insulting me as much as you can get away with is not a way to have a adult conversation.

Clearly you did not comprehend my last post, nor can you understand the concept of "conflict of interest".

[logicalview]

You have no interest in actual debate. Insulting me as much as you can get away with is not a way to have a adult conversation.

Clearly you did not comprehend my last post, nor can you understand the concept of "conflict of interest".

removed - Jennylives In terms of a conflict of interest, you will find that the perpetrators of the man made global warming hoax are the very definition of conflict of interest. A lot of researchers, crazies like Hansen, and politicians livelihoods depend on this hoax, and the false doctrine of scientific consensus. Every time they put out another crazy article about "death trains" they are in conflict, because they are just trying to keep the taps open on the taxpayer pipeline of cash. They deliberately game the system, then point fingers at straw men like the Koch brothers to deflect attention from their own malfeasance.

good day to you sir.