Jump to content
TennesseeTuxedo

Random Lobbyist (not a founder of Greenpeace) - Climate Crisis Is Fake Science and Fake News

Recommended Posts

'Nator   
11 minutes ago, TennesseeTuxedo said:

Natural News is a fake news site. 

 

It’s literally “New of the World” for health news and it also delves heavily into conspiracy theories 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justafan   
1 hour ago, 'Nator said:

Natural News is a fake news site. 

 

It’s literally “New of the World” for health news and it also delves heavily into conspiracy theories 

Ummmmm.... duh.  It's cux.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justafan   

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

 

Quote

 

An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al2007).

The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the search 'global climate change' found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).

Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Through analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and evolution of consensus over the last two decades.

 

1

 

Those little parentheses and numbers at the bottom of the article are called references.  I know they are new to some here because they just never seem to be listed at the bottom of the papers that criticize global warming.  So weird!  To be fair, in the history of climate science, there have been ALMOST 100 peer-reviewed articles that call the science of global warming and predictive methods into question.

 

That sounds impressive until you realize there have been more than 100,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming around the world and they all seem to have independently come to the same consensus which is not true in the other papers.  20% roll says.  Math must not be his strong suit.

 

Keep in mind also, the same people who told us lead was okay are the same ones telling you that global warming isn't real.  They continued to allow lead into the water system and sell leaded gas for DECADES after the science clearly told them that it was causing people to get sick and people were dying as a result of all the lead.  They continued right up until they lost some court cases (and completely railroading the scientists brave enough to stand up to them) and the government got involved and started regulating. 

 

That's right, the government protected people from a business that cared so much about making money that they were willing to partake in the indirect murder of their fellow citizens in order to make a few extra bucks.  THOSE are the same people telling you that climate change isn't real.  It's okay, you can trust them.  They're conservatives and businesses will just regulate themselves and the rich people will just take care of all the poor people if you just give them a chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Downtown said:

How has this thread gotten so long without acknowledging that Patrick Moore is not the co-founder of Greenpeace and is a lobbyist funded by plastics and nuclear energy?

 

He at one time worked with Greenpeace Canada before it was discovered that he was on the energy dime on the side. He has since used that convenient lie to make money speaking on behalf of the logging, plastics, and nuclear industries because he was once involved with Greenpeace Canada. 

 

Totall Partisan and Funded Bullshit:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-moore-climate-doubter/

 

@Jamalisms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Downtown said:

How has this thread gotten so long without acknowledging that Patrick Moore is not the co-founder of Greenpeace and is a lobbyist funded by plastics and nuclear energy?

 

He at one time worked with Greenpeace Canada before it was discovered that he was on the energy dime on the side. He has since used that convenient lie to make money speaking on behalf of the logging, plastics, and nuclear industries because he was once involved with Greenpeace Canada. 

 

Totall Partisan and Funded Bullshit:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrick-moore-climate-doubter/

 

HAHAHAHA

 

Tux has the worst record, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CreepingDeath said:

Cux needs a temp ban or a shame title/avatar for this continued bulkshit. 

i think a forced shame title / avatar would be perfect. 

 

dont restrict his posts... just make them even more laughable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Moore also claimed climate change is real but said the idea of a “climate crisis” has been manufactured and is based on junk science.

 

“The whole climate crisis as they call it is not only fake news, it’s fake science. There is no climate crisis,” he told Fox News. “There is weather and climate all around the world. And, in fact, carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life. That’s where the carbon comes from in carbon-based life, which is all life on land and in the sea. And not only that, a little bit of warming would not be a bad thing for myself, being a Canadian. And the people in Russia wouldn’t mind a little couple of degrees warmer either.”

 

“Yes, of course climate change is real,” he continued. “It’s been happening since the beginning of time. But it’s not dangerous and it’s not made by people. Climate change is a perfectly natural phenomenon and this modern warm period actually began about 300 years ago when that little ice age began to come to an end. There is nothing to be afraid of. And that’s all they’re doing is instilling fear.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justafan   
31 minutes ago, TennesseeTuxedo said:

Actually, Patrick Moore is one of the co-founders of Greenpeace.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100410211306/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders

"The committee's founders were Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Ben and Dorothy Metcalfe, and Bob Hunter. It's first directors were Stowe, Bohlen, and a student named Paul Cote."

 

Not according to Greenpeace.  According to their website, he was involved early on but he wasn't a co-founder.  Greenpeace was formed in 1970 and he didn't come on board until a year later.  It's almost like he was lying.  

Edited by Justafan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...