Jump to content

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Deb


Recommended Posts

Wednesday, 05 June 2013 16:15 Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" DebunkedWritten by William F. Jasper
208d29355c977f49e82e11a965372a6d_M.jpg

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 Nationmagazine 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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen for years that the Warmers have lied to promote their agenda.

We have to ask, if you have the facts on your side, why is there a need to lie?

 

Is it because they are liberals and simply incapable of telling the truth? Do they believe that their agenda is so important, they feel they are justified in their deception? In their minds, do the ends justify the means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never give up!

 

cc

That is conservatism of ideology shown to be incomplete and they rather remain incomplete than face what is really taking place out of their design in social orchestration of a common denial. I.e. create a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is conservatism of ideology shown to be incomplete and they rather remain incomplete than face what is really taking place out of their design in social orchestration of a common denial. I.e. create a reality.

 

Do you have some sort of 1,000 sided buzzword die that you use to create your sentences? Because none of that makes a damn bit of sense. Even worse none of it is backed by any sort of data or even a coherent argument to support your gibberish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in the f is "William F. Jasper"?

A cursory read of this screed reveals that it's nothing but a collection of op-ed declarations, unsupported with anything substantive.

We read that a dr. Tol has "discredited the Cook survey, but is dr. Tol a climate expert or scientist? No He's a freakin' social science teacher.

Then we read that a dr. "Peiser" discredited the original survey of 12000 papers done by Oreskes...is dr. Peiser a climate researcher or scientist? No. He's a freakin' economist.

The basis for the "discrediting"? That Cook is a "leftists" and didn't use the right terminology in his search terms when looking for papers that agree with AGW. But not a single survey of those papers from William F. Jasper, who's expertise in WTF who knows we are never told, and he sure as eff doesn't exist on the net outside of the new effing American which rails against negroes and "leftists".

More hysterical, frothing denier conspiracy pablum from the anti-science crowd at Liberalforum.

 

What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never give up!

 

Well, that does seem to be the AGWcommunity's motto, cc.

 

Because AGWcommunity's climate models aren't doing very good, yet they aren't giving up on them.

 

Or even acknowledging the problem with them.

 

Here ... from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

 

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-m

 

In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

 

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

 

If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

 

That's A VERY GOOD QUESTION that illustrates the underlying dishonesty of the whole AGW*science* community.

 

Don't you agree, cc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in the f is "William F. Jasper"?

A cursory read of this screed reveals that it's nothing but a collection of op-ed declarations, unsupported with anything substantive.

We read that a dr. Tol has "discredited the Cook survey, but is dr. Tol a climate expert or scientist? No He's a freakin' social science teacher.

Then we read that a dr. "Peiser" discredited the original survey of 12000 papers done by Oreskes...is dr. Peiser a climate researcher or scientist? No. He's a freakin' economist.

The basis for the "discrediting"? That Cook is a "leftists" and didn't use the right terminology in his search terms when looking for papers that agree with AGW. But not a single survey of those papers from William F. Jasper, who's expertise in WTF who knows we are never told, and he sure as eff doesn't exist on the net outside of the new effing American which rails against negroes and "leftists".

More hysterical, frothing denier conspiracy pablum from the anti-science crowd at Liberalforum.

 

What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

It appears you're a denier. Why are you denying the facts presented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dano has a serious reading comprehension problem!

 

That's your response to my detailed deconstruction and discrediting of that OP? :o

You're dogmeat. Stick a fork in your ass, your cred, if you everm had any, is shot.

 

 

m9vacz.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's your response to my detailed deconstruction and discrediting of that OP? :o

You're dogmeat. Stick a fork in your ass, your cred, if you everm had any, is shot.

In Draino's world "A cursory read" and ad hominem attacks are substitutes for a "detailed deconstruction".

 

I've got to tell you that I did get a kick out of your "GOP Scientific Method" projection though:

 

Make up a claim: Global warming

Make up evidence to support the claim: Too many examples to list, but let's start with Climate Gate.

Claim all Evidence is Wrong: A favorite tactic of the Goebbel Warmers - (big oil payoffs ring a bell?)

Use made up evidence to prove it: Like lowering historical temps, as the Warmers got caught doing?

Claim Victory: Consensus.

 

 

The fact that liberals claim there is consensus proves they don't understand the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen for years that the Warmers have lied to promote their agenda.

We have to ask, if you have the facts on your side, why is there a need to lie?

 

Is it because they are liberals and simply incapable of telling the truth? Do they believe that their agenda is so important, they feel they are justified in their deception? In their minds, do the ends justify the means?

Ask Saul Alinsky

 

 

Do you have some sort of 1,000 sided buzzword die that you use to create your sentences? Because none of that makes a damn bit of sense. Even worse none of it is backed by any sort of data or even a coherent argument to support your gibberish.

It's really 1,000 monkeys on 1,000 typewriters....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to see a REAL scientist (Dr. Murray Salby) completely DEMOLISH the AGW CO2 theory?

Watch this ...



And if you can't handle the detailed math and logic, what can I say?

You AGWTruthers have been fooling yourselves.

As the speaker suggests … you're subscribers to "cult science". :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked

Written by /thenewamerican.com - William F. Jasper

 

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.

 

Now comes another devastating analysis of Cook's cooked data from a big name in the climate science community: Professor Richard S. J. Tol...

 

Tol - /wattsupwiththat.com - statistically deconstructed the 97 percent consensus myth

 

/www.populartechnology.net

 

Dr. Benny Peiser, a social science professor...eviscerated the Oreskes study

 

The fanatical AGW commitment of Cook and his coauthors appears to be driven by their leftist ideological devotion.

 

the Cook/Skeptical Science team - “commies,” “leftists,” and "pinko/liberals”

 

LOLOLOLOLOL.....it's really quite hilarious how extremely gullible you rightwingwacko anti-science denier cult retards are....you'll fall for any propaganda piece no matter how full of lies and no matter how disreputable the sources....

 

Let's look at this bit of crapola you've come up with now....

 

Did this article appear in any kind of scientific publication, let alone a peer reviewed science journal, like the Cook, et al. study did?....NO....it appears in 'The New American', the rightwingnut rag published by The John Birch Society....

 

John Birch Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(excerpts)

The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government... It has been described as radical right-wing.[6][7]

 

Founder Robert W. Welch Jr. (1899–1985) developed an elaborate organizational infrastructure in 1958 that enabled him to keep a very tight rein on the chapters.[8] Its main activity in the 1960s...writing postcards or letters to government officials linking specific policies to the Communist menace.[9] After an early rise in membership and influence, efforts by people like conservative William F. Buckley, Jr. and the National Review led the JBS to be identified as a fringe element of the conservative movement.[10][11]

 

Originally based in Belmont, Massachusetts, it is now headquartered in Grand Chute, Wisconsin,[12] with local chapters in all 50 states. The organization owns American Opinion Publishing, which publishes the journal The New American.[13]

 

This article you're citing, was written by William Jasper, an unknown far rightwingnut John Bircher and senior editor of The New American. He starts off with a blatant lie about the number of scientific papers explicitly affirming AGW, and continues in that vein for the rest of his rant. I'll get back to that first lie in my next post. All of his sources are deniers and fossil fuel industry sponsored AGW-denier front groups.

 

He cites, as one of his primary sources, an article on the discredited denier cult blog - WattsUpMyButt - by a character named Richard Tol. Is Tol a climate scientist?....NO....he is an economist....Jasper describes him as "a big name in the climate science community", which is another blatant lie. He is an economist, not a climate scientist, and, although he has written about the economic consequences of climate change, he is virtually unknown in the actual world climate science community. He is a hard-core denier of the conclusions of modern climate science and has written articles like "Why Worry About Climate Change?" and has said scientifically illiterate things like: "People still blame the gods for weather disaster, such as lightning strikes. The gods have changed names, that's all. Odin and Shiva are now called Climate Change.". In relation to possible terrorism due to climate changes, he said: "it may well be that a Maldivian terrorist will try and blow up the headquarters of ExxonAramco" but he discounts the probability of this actually happening by concluding that "poor and exhausted people are unlikely to take up arms, and if they do, they are probably not very effective".

 

The next source Jasper cites is populartechnology.net, the blog of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). Let's look at that corporate funded anti-regulatory group.

 

Science and Public Policy Institute

SourceWatch

 

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

 

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

 

In August 2011, Institute President Robert Ferguson spoke on "Benefit Analysis of CO2"[1] (previously known as "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2"[2]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[3] He was accompanied by Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[3]

 

About ALEC

 

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

 

SPPI's legal status? (not an IRS nonprofit)

 

Although in March 2011 SPPI's webpages described it as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy...", in early 2011 Ferguson said SPPI had not been granted nonprofit status from the IRS[5], 3+ years after it was formed.

 

(An entry in Virginia's Corporation Records [1] for "Science and Public Policy Institute, The" (#0673507-0) shows SPPI's directors as Robert E. Ferguson, and two attorneys. But this was reportedly a shell corporation, with no income and no expenditures.[6])

 

Ferguson employed by CO2Science

 

The 2009 Form 990 for the Idsos' Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reports the Center paid Ferguson a base salary of $247,500 plus a $60,000 bonus.

 

Connections to FoF's Center for Science and Public Policy

 

Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, SPPI's Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute. SPPI's blog is run by a web designer who has also reported helping at Frontiers of Freedom.[7]

 

SPPI is in the same building as CSPP, though in different offices - SPPI at Suite 299[8] and CSPP at Suite 2100.[9]

 

Funding

On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding or outline its approach to disclosure.

 

For past funding (of CSPP) by Exxon, see the "Exxon funding" section of the Frontiers of Freedom page.

 

Frontiers of Freedom

Funding

Frontiers of Freedom has received money from tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

 

Exxon Funding

 

According to a 2003 New York Times report, "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times "They've determined that we are effective at what we do" and that Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".[1]

 

Funding from Exxon includes:

  • 2002: $100,000 for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic), $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[2]
  • 2003: $95,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach" and a further $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center";[3]
  • 2004: $50,000 for "Climate Change Efforts", $90,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach", $40,000 as "Project Support - Climate Change" and a further $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change";[4]
  • 2005: $50,000 for the "Annual Gala and General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for "General Operating Support"[5];
  • 2006: $90,000 for "General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center"[6]; and
  • 2007: $90,000 for "energy literacy".[7]

Foundation Funding

Media Transparency reports that FoF has also received some $580,450 in 25 grants between 1996 and 2005 from the following five conservative foundations:[8]

 

In his retarded and futile attempt to discredit the Cook, et al, paper, this wacko Bircher, Jasper, mentioned an earlier study with similar results by Naomi Oreskes and claimed that: "Dr. Benny Peiser, a social science professor...eviscerated the Oreskes study". LOLOLOLOL.

 

Benny Peiser

SourceWatch

 

Benny Peiser (b. 1957) is a UK social anthropologist and AGW denier listed among the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" despite having no evident expertise in climate science or policy. Peiser is Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and as of fall 2011, he is a Visiting Fellow at the right wing University of Buckingham, whose current and former vice chancellors serve on the GWPF academic advisory council.

 

Peiser was educated in West Germany and studied political science, English, and sports science in Frankfurt.

 

No peer reviewed climate publications

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

 

Peiser was a senior lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) until July 2010.

 

Peiser is frequently quoted in Local Transport Today, a transport journal that frequently features the views of climate change skeptics.

Peiser is director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[6]

Peiser is co-editor of the skeptic journal Energy and Environment[7]

 

2005 — Claimed his study refuted Oreskes on consensus; claim retracted

Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.

 

Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.[14]

 

Peiser originally stated in January 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oreskes's study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science." On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the ~1000 research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that this one study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists[15]. Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.[16][15][17]

 

Global Warming Policy Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom group opposing action to mitigate climate change.

 

The GWPF was founded, curiously, at the same time as the climategate emails were released on the University of Tomsk's server. At the time of its foundation the average age of its trustees was 74. Chairman Nigel Lawson stated "We will certainly be actively involved in monitoring what is being said, in correcting errors where the are errors. The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that."[5]

 

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships

The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

 

"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers

In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[18] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -

  • 9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
  • "prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
  • the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[19]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

 

Irrelevant. No climate model that accurately predicts anthropogenic global warming has been developed.

 

Now hush your mouth before someone exposes your personal info again. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOLOLOLOLOL.....it's really quite hilarious how extremely gullible you rightwingwacko anti-science denier cult retards are....you'll fall for any propaganda piece no matter how full of lies and no matter how disreputable the sources....

 

Let's look at this bit of crapola you've come up with now....

 

Did this article appear in any kind of scientific publication, let alone a peer reviewed science journal, like the Cook, et al. study did?....NO....it appears in 'The New American', the rightwingnut rag published by The John Birch Society....

 

John Birch Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(excerpts)

The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government... It has been described as radical right-wing.[6][7]

 

Founder Robert W. Welch Jr. (1899–1985) developed an elaborate organizational infrastructure in 1958 that enabled him to keep a very tight rein on the chapters.[8] Its main activity in the 1960s...writing postcards or letters to government officials linking specific policies to the Communist menace.[9] After an early rise in membership and influence, efforts by people like conservative William F. Buckley, Jr. and the National Review led the JBS to be identified as a fringe element of the conservative movement.[10][11]

 

Originally based in Belmont, Massachusetts, it is now headquartered in Grand Chute, Wisconsin,[12] with local chapters in all 50 states. The organization owns American Opinion Publishing, which publishes the journal The New American.[13]

 

This article you're citing, was written by William Jasper, an unknown far rightwingnut John Bircher and senior editor of The New American. He starts off with a blatant lie about the number of scientific papers explicitly affirming AGW, and continues in that vein for the rest of his rant. I'll get back to that first lie in my next post. All of his sources are deniers and fossil fuel industry sponsored AGW-denier front groups.

 

He cites, as one of his primary sources, an article on the discredited denier cult blog - WattsUpMyButt - by a character named Richard Tol. Is Tol a climate scientist?....NO....he is an economist....Jasper describes him as "a big name in the climate science community", which is another blatant lie. He is an economist, not a climate scientist, and, although he has written about the economic consequences of climate change, he is virtually unknown in the actual world climate science community. He is a hard-core denier of the conclusions of modern climate science and has written articles like "Why Worry About Climate Change?" and has said scientifically illiterate things like: "People still blame the gods for weather disaster, such as lightning strikes. The gods have changed names, that's all. Odin and Shiva are now called Climate Change.". In relation to possible terrorism due to climate changes, he said: "it may well be that a Maldivian terrorist will try and blow up the headquarters of ExxonAramco" but he discounts the probability of this actually happening by concluding that "poor and exhausted people are unlikely to take up arms, and if they do, they are probably not very effective".

 

The next source Jasper cites is populartechnology.net, the blog of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). Let's look at that corporate funded anti-regulatory group.

 

Science and Public Policy Institute

SourceWatch

 

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

 

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

 

In August 2011, Institute President Robert Ferguson spoke on "Benefit Analysis of CO2"[1] (previously known as "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2"[2]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[3] He was accompanied by Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[3]

 

About ALEC

 

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

 

SPPI's legal status? (not an IRS nonprofit)

 

Although in March 2011 SPPI's webpages described it as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy...", in early 2011 Ferguson said SPPI had not been granted nonprofit status from the IRS[5], 3+ years after it was formed.

 

(An entry in Virginia's Corporation Records [1] for "Science and Public Policy Institute, The" (#0673507-0) shows SPPI's directors as Robert E. Ferguson, and two attorneys. But this was reportedly a shell corporation, with no income and no expenditures.[6])

 

Ferguson employed by CO2Science

 

The 2009 Form 990 for the Idsos' Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reports the Center paid Ferguson a base salary of $247,500 plus a $60,000 bonus.

 

Connections to FoF's Center for Science and Public Policy

 

Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, SPPI's Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute. SPPI's blog is run by a web designer who has also reported helping at Frontiers of Freedom.[7]

 

SPPI is in the same building as CSPP, though in different offices - SPPI at Suite 299[8] and CSPP at Suite 2100.[9]

 

Funding

On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding or outline its approach to disclosure.

 

For past funding (of CSPP) by Exxon, see the "Exxon funding" section of the Frontiers of Freedom page.

 

Frontiers of Freedom

Funding

Frontiers of Freedom has received money from tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

 

Exxon Funding

 

According to a 2003 New York Times report, "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times "They've determined that we are effective at what we do" and that Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".[1]

 

Funding from Exxon includes:

  • 2002: $100,000 for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic), $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[2]
  • 2003: $95,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach" and a further $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center";[3]
  • 2004: $50,000 for "Climate Change Efforts", $90,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach", $40,000 as "Project Support - Climate Change" and a further $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change";[4]
  • 2005: $50,000 for the "Annual Gala and General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for "General Operating Support"[5];
  • 2006: $90,000 for "General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center"[6]; and
  • 2007: $90,000 for "energy literacy".[7]

Foundation Funding

Media Transparency reports that FoF has also received some $580,450 in 25 grants between 1996 and 2005 from the following five conservative foundations:[8]

 

In his retarded and futile attempt to discredit the Cook, et al, paper, this wacko Bircher, Jasper, mentioned an earlier study with similar results by Naomi Oreskes and claimed that: "Dr. Benny Peiser, a social science professor...eviscerated the Oreskes study". LOLOLOLOL.

 

Benny Peiser

SourceWatch

 

Benny Peiser (b. 1957) is a UK social anthropologist and AGW denier listed among the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" despite having no evident expertise in climate science or policy. Peiser is Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and as of fall 2011, he is a Visiting Fellow at the right wing University of Buckingham, whose current and former vice chancellors serve on the GWPF academic advisory council.

 

Peiser was educated in West Germany and studied political science, English, and sports science in Frankfurt.

 

No peer reviewed climate publications

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

 

Peiser was a senior lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) until July 2010.

 

Peiser is frequently quoted in Local Transport Today, a transport journal that frequently features the views of climate change skeptics.

Peiser is director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[6]

Peiser is co-editor of the skeptic journal Energy and Environment[7]

 

2005 — Claimed his study refuted Oreskes on consensus; claim retracted

Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.

 

Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.[14]

 

Peiser originally stated in January 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oreskes's study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science." On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the ~1000 research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that this one study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists[15]. Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.[16][15][17]

 

Global Warming Policy Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom group opposing action to mitigate climate change.

 

The GWPF was founded, curiously, at the same time as the climategate emails were released on the University of Tomsk's server. At the time of its foundation the average age of its trustees was 74. Chairman Nigel Lawson stated "We will certainly be actively involved in monitoring what is being said, in correcting errors where the are errors. The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that."[5]

 

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships

The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

 

"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers

In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[18] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -

  • 9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
  • "prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
  • the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[19]

 

 

 

You are the propaganda piece....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...zebra posts an article without a speck of science, beachoozer posts a video without a speck of science, and pogo posts 14 truckloads of links, graphs and quotes..and the answer from beech and zebra is "you're a poopyface!"

 

This is running joke.

 

Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are stupid (pogo) and you missed the entire point of the article!

 

The article is a bogus piece of anti-scientific hokum and its point is the usual denial of reality in the service of the continued profits of the fossil fuel industry. You're a clueless, brainwashed denier cult retard who parrots what your puppet masters tell you without any critical thought or fact checking or looking at sources.

 

You are the propaganda piece....

 

You would think that since you, Manphew, are the clueless, reality denying cultist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The article is a bogus piece of anti-scientific hokum and its point is the usual denial of reality in the service of the continued profits of the fossil fuel industry. You're a clueless, brainwashed denier cult retard who parrots what your puppet masters tell you without any critical thought or fact checking or looking at sources.

 

 

You would think that since you, Manphew, are the clueless, reality denying cultist

 

The article had NOTHING to do with 'scientific studies'. It was about Cook cooking the books on scientist's agreeing on 'global warming'. You are a 'low information voter' who has a serious reading comprehension problem Your dumb as a rock!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...