Very strong debunk of SkS
This seems like quite an easy demolition of SkS
On This non-Skeptical Non-science page there is this text:
"Several independent studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, that CO2 is causing global changes to the climate, and that the consequences could be catastrophic. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.
But Neither of the 2 surveys used mentioned the word Catastrophe am I wrong ?
” Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
Nothing about changing the climate and it doesn’t even mention CO2
“Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of climate
scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary
conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible
for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average
global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”
It's easy to verify that none of the 97% consesnsus surveys say anything about catastrophic consequences.
He leave this disinformation on his site, even though it has been pointed out many times.
|Third 97 % - when cooks says 97% of Published Reasearch says
- But is a completely made-up survey.. totally flawed ..with lots of scientists saying their results have been misclassified.
- It should appear on retractionwatch.com soon
- VIDEO :Bob Carter he is very very good at explaining the Climate hysteria problem
- Another Great Video from Bolt in May Carter and 2 other scientists from the same university near the Great Barrier Reef totally ridicule OVe- Guldbegs horror preddictions
- If you're a hired gun such as Schmidt and your task is to cherry-pick 3 facts among thousands out of the tree of science, deny the rest, and "derive" far-reaching, religious conclusions out of the 3 holy facts you like, it's pretty much inevitable that you say lots of silly things. Let's look at them in some detail"If you're a hired gun such as Schmidt and your task is to cherry-pick 3 facts among thousands out of the tree of science, deny the rest, and "derive" far-reaching, religious conclusions out of the 3 holy facts you like, it's pretty much inevitable that you say lots of silly things. Let's look at them in some detail."
- in a debunk of Sci-am
- Townhall Another Right Wing Channel on Youtube
- Other Libertarian Film maker making 50-1 video TophersUnpopularView on youtube
- Other Australian - Filmaker makes fun of wacky Left/Green protesters ..His Index
"Interesting story of how teachers don't want kids reading any skeptical books or watching any skeptical films , but the same children are made to watch Incovenient (un)Truths 3 times. saying to kid questioning (We don't need to hear from you")
"Greenie attacks on the resource industry have been blunted by the mining companies in particular giving the Greenies lots of dosh... BHP-Billiton in particular have been assiduous in pouring millions into environmental and social mitigiation projects
didn't someone say they are working on a climate wiki ? good idea so I searched for one
So i searched and found quite a few dead wikis then :
but 1. it's been dead for 1 year last edited 15 March 2012, at 14:58.
Half complete it has a lot of good skeptic arguments, but
2. It's email address is an eco-alarmist charity ..who's website has a lot of alrmist propaganda ..which one is the fake one ?
Calendar of ABC Guardian Failed stories from last year
Story, debunked, retracted
Green activists paid scam like whiplash ?
- "The intention of most of the activist legal hoopla isn't to actually change things but to bully and corral debate, coupled to something that resembles whiplash car crash fraud."
- zaps hours of time trying to correct their 1 minute of lies
A person who shares logic or data to illustrate why they disagree with an idea is contributing. One who simply dismisses it with judgment words like "stupid" or "moron" is substituting insult for information. It's a lazy way of attempting to persuade because it required no research or exposition. It's a way of playing to your base rather than influencing the worthy opponent.
|Standard Troll Tolls
Bullying and Debate Manipulation
DNC - $50 - Derogatory Name calling -like using the word DENIER intended to frame of anchor the debate.
OT -$30 - Deliberately trying to hijack a debate by taking it off topic
97C -$10 - Trying to introduce the debunked "97% Consensus of Climate Scientists" Claim
97CR -$20 - Trying to introduce the debunked John Cook "97% of papers" claim ..
(strange they got 97% both times as if they were trying to replace one debunked 97% claim with another)
AH - $20 - Ad- hominem attack
AA - $20 - Appeal To Authority
UR - $10 - introducing spurious wild UN-RELIABLE claims which are only found in the
Guardian or BBC
SS - $20 - introducing spurious claim and quoting the source as nonSkeptical nonScience
FPR - $10 trying to introduce the false Claim that Peer reviewed =True
DS - $30 Driving Seat = critising another commenter so that he spends time answering you and then you just ignore his questions to you
RC +$20 quoting a relevant "claim" with a source of where to find it
ExC +$10 for expressing a note of caution & context instead of the normal raving Certainty
e.g. "@Troll1 DNC, 97C, 2 x AH and a OT you're a -$130 troll today"
Why "debate" seems more like a brainwashing exercise
PR agency spin
- Ah That Futerra that said : "To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken ."
..from the famous : Rules of the Game document 2005
- and had some stuff come out in the Climategate emails
- and which produces info against "Greenwashing" which seems to promote Greenwashing
Ever wondered why the Climate Change "debate" seems more like a brainwashing exercise ?
|Item about Green Brainwashing campaign|
- Our reality is controlled by what we see, so if some one controls that they can give us an alternate reality
What is reality? Reality is what goes into your eyes and into your ears ..and if I control those INPUTS I can control YOUR REALITY
- So if you are a school kid and you are spoonfed that brainwashing that Johnny Ball talked about, and then you are made to watch An Inconvenient Truth 3 times, but discouraged from reading any skeptical books or watch any skeptical films ( 3 min Video story of this event ) and spoonfed a picture that solar and windfarms are such a magic solution that they can power the world ..then you that schoolkid are going to have a totally warped REALITY in your head.
But kept away from any alternative views you will be CERTAIN of what you have been told.
- If you as a TV controller are CERTAIN that the Global warming is the simple meme : CO2 is linked to rising temperatures and CO2 is ever rising due to man, then you are certain that temperature is heading towards catastrophe and certain the problem is URGENT . So when some eco-activists come to you and say it's very important that the "childrens" minds not get muddied so lets keep the TV output ON-MESSAGE and keep off 'troubler-makers' ".. you'll say yes "makes sense to me"
- The BBC website gives me "the CAGW Scare story of the day" everyday ..yet I have never heard of these skeptical films. I wonder if media industry people have decided that the best policy of countering skeptics is just starve them of the oxygen of publicity rather than counter