An actual email from the “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any anti-science organization?” department and Barack Obama’s “Organizing for Action” front.
Friend —
It’s tough out there for climate change deniers.
One by one, literally every argument and excuse they’ve been using for years is being proven false.
They’re still grasping at myths and conspiracy theories, but deniers are on the run.
Let’s keep them there — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers.
In reality, the debate on the basics is over.
Not only do 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made, but new reports are showing climate and extreme weather impacts are affecting us right now.
Droughts, floods, wildfires, and storms are hitting communities from California to the East Coast, and we’re already spending hundreds of billions on climate-related disaster relief — no one is denying that.
Instead, what you hear from climate change deniers are mostly excuses for not taking action. Some have hidden behind foreign countries, saying America can’t or shouldn’t lead on climate until someone else goes first.
Let’s set aside for a minute that this isn’t actually how we solve global problems. The fact is, President Obama is leading internationally through agreements with China and India to cut carbon pollution and expand the use of clean energy. (So there goes that denier talking point…)
Another thing you might hear from a denier is that we simply can’t get serious about cutting carbon pollution without destroying the economy. That’s just false. For example, the climate and public health benefits from President Obama’s Clean Power Plan outweigh the costs by at least six times.
Maybe deniers doubt we have the will and ingenuity to take such a huge problem on. Well, the American people are proving them wrong: Since 2009, we’ve increased solar power ten-fold and tripled wind power. Hundreds of thousands of Americans work in clean energy today.
The arguments from deniers are getting more and more ludicrous.
We have the facts on our side — and we have to drive that message home. Because as long as deniers and polluters are blocking progress, we’re not doing all we can to combat climate change.
Say you’ll help take them to task — join the team that’s calling out climate change deniers:
http://my.barackobama.com/Expose-Climate-Change-Deniers
Thanks,
Ivan
Ivan Frishberg
Senior Climate Advisor
Organizing for Action
[h/t to: TheLastDemocrat]
“One by one, literally every argument and excuse they’ve been using for years is being proven false.”
ahh I see, its opposite day. I was getting confused for a bit.
Ivan, Ivan, Ivan . . .
You can fabulize well on demand. Have you contacted Walt Disney Productions? They are always in need of useful fabulists.
John
Lysenko would be proud I expect.
Ivan Frishberg
Senior Climate Advisor
Organizing for Action
Dear Ivan,
I am standing with my back to you, pants around my ankles. Now kiss my exposure.
Signed,
Climate realist
Over 20 years ago I was involved in an auto accident. (I know you’re thinking, so what?’) Anyway, in the state I lived in at the time there was a rule that in an auto accident all parties involved would share at least some level of liability. Thus, even if a motorist was hit from behind, that motorist would still be assigned liability; in that case the rear-ended driver probably about 10% with the other driver assigned 90%.
Anyway, I was responsibly motoring along when, at an intersection, another vehicle took a left immediately in front of me. Whump. Screech. Pssst.
Now, this was clearly the other vehicle’s fault. But, true to form, I didn’t have auto insurance at the time. And, with the shared liability provision in my state (well, it wasn’t really my state – I didn’t build it), coupled with my lack of insurance, the first thought that popped to my mind was, “I’m really screwed.”
Anyway, the police shortly showed up. They immediately had the other driver walk a line. In my rattled state I didn’t realize what was happening at first. Then it dawned on me: oh, please she’s drunk; oh, please she’s drunk.
Oh, she was alright: 0.18 BAC. (This was a more involved accident than I’m describing but I’m already taking waaay too long to get to the punch line.)
Anyway, due to the fact I didn’t have insurance I was advised by my therapist (did I just admit that?) to seek legal counsel. My therapist (there I go again) referred me to one.
(I’m almost done.)
Anyway, subsequently at the lawyer’s office I arrived, accident report in hand. Not one to mince words, and possessed of an hilariously foul mouth my attorney looked at the first name of the drunk driver and said: “Charvela … Charvela? What kind of f…..g name is that?
Reading this report I have little doubt his response would be: Ivan Frishberg … Ivan Frishberg? What kind of f…..g name is that?
Hey, Tom J,
Lol, after the 20th (or so) time reading down this thread, I began thinking the same thing. Poetic justice or what. Now, every time I scan down this thread and see “Ivan, Ivan…” I think of “The Oscar Song” (sung by Felix Unger for his pal Oscar Madison on an “Odd Couple” episode in the 1970’s) and sing to myself, “I – van, I – van, I-I-I-I – I – van” (lololol). And, generally speaking, Ivan has never struck me as a silly name. Too bad for all Ivans from now on… the content of this guy’s character is so repulsive that people will now judge all Ivans by the color of that name.
Tom, you are a really cool guy. I don’t know ANY — one who does NOT need therapy. We ALL have issues we are not addressing (time/money being the reasons I don’t go). Good for you to admit you needed help. You only proved that you were: 1. Wise and 2. Humble. And 1. + 2. = “cool.”
I am so sorry for what that drunk’s selfishness did to you. Your lucid, worthwhile, intelligent, comments, generous-spiritedness, and witty sense of humor show that while she damaged your body (and that neat little car 🙁 ), she did not destroy “you.”
I’m glad you are here.
Take care (and get out to a car race or two this summer),
Janice
P.S. And DRAW. That’s an order. If you can’t use your hands, use your mouth, like Joni Eareckson-Tada (for info. see her website joniandfriends.org — she has some really cool videos to watch)
Is this for real?
If yes, why are they still in power? I know Americans aren’t very bright in general but you have to be REAL dumb to let these charlatans do this openly.
Just out of curiosity, and without discounting that “Americans aren’t very bright in general”, where are you writing from ?
I’ll have to agree with your “Americans aren’t very bright in general”.
And for sake of full disclosure, I live in the US and have done so continuously for the past 44 years.
And you know what?
Half of self-called, self-selected government-paid “climate scientists” are below average! But all of them are paid more than they are worth.
More accurately.
1/2 of Government-paid “scientists” are below average.
4/10 of the Government-paid politicians in the US are democrat party, and do not think. (Well, are not allowed to think, if they do think at all.)
9/10 of the self-selected news media are biased partisan democrat party supporters, promoters and voters.
1/2 of all of the politicians in the US are below average.
Therefore, when a democrat party politician quotes a climate scientist about national policy to a biased news media propagandist in the United States, 98.5% of the time he is wrong. Don’t get me wrong. Some of them may actually believe fervently in what their religion wants them to say. But they are nevertheless, wrong 98.5% of the time.
Obama is recognizing well accepted science and calling out conspiracy theorists who push fear-mongering denials.
HOW DARE HE!
You’ve been brainwashed like the clueless masses, Paul.
Could you please produce ONE scientific paper that contains this “well accepted science” you proclaim has been found?
(We’re talking about anthropogenic climate change, by the way, and a bunch of opinions do not qualify as an acceptable answer.)
We’ll all be waiting.
Sorry to be late to this one. One good sign, the Senior Climate advisor for OA writes and evidently thinks at the same (low) level as our resident trolls. If Ivan is as bad at fundraising as he is at critical thinking, OA will be as successful as a Bialystock production. Surely such lies won’t go far before being exposed by the cynical press?
Warren says:
“Those that reject the findings of ALL the Academies often claim a universal conspiracy to deceive, either explicitly or implicitly. Furthermore, those same individuals who reject peer-reviewed science do not submit their own work (if they have any) to peer-review for publication, and many claim fraud or conspiracy and impugn those that do the heavy lifting. Perhaps you do not. But it’s not an admirable performance by those that do.”
Warren, were you ever diagnosed with a reading comprehension problem in school? The reason I ask is because you are once again using the word “conspiracy” rather than addressing what I actually talked about. I suggest you check out the definition of “corruption” and “conspiracy” in your nearest dictionary to try and understand the difference.
Do you know for a fact that ALL scientific institutions are toeing the alarmist party line? Where did you hear that from? Did you merely accept it on blind faith when someone told you?
The peer-review process in science can easily be corrupted itself when there is a lot of money involved. Only fellow climate alarmists are allowed to peer-review. Skeptics not welcome. Do you really believe that scientists and scientific institutions on the alarmist side of this issue will not apply and maintain the necessary pressure on fellow scientists to toe the party line when the multi-billion $$$ gravy train is at stake? All the contradictory scientific evidence that has been presented here at WUWT and elsewhere over the years means nothing to them (and apparently to you). All that matters to them is the health of their bank accounts. Gotta keep that gravy train flowing.
Yes, there are many scientists that have produced scientific papers that contradict the alarmist party line. It is not at all difficult to understand that these papers are seen as a serious threat to the multi-billion $$$ gravy train in the eyes of everyone that is on that gravy train and are hell-bent on keeping it going. So naturally it is not easy for the skeptics to get published. If you question the existence of the skeptic papers, you are not looking very hard and need to pay attention to the postings at this website. This website and many of its commenters also do an admirable job of shooting down alarmist papers that you have blind unquestioning faith in. All you have to do is read them. God knows I’ve read enough of the alarmist doo-doo at this website.
Warren, one of the biggest mistakes you and everyone else can make in science and in one’s life generally is to blindly accept everything (or most everything) one reads and hears. I realize how much of a shock this probably is to you Warren, but skepticism (as I understand it) is the supposed to be the basis (or part of it) for scientific discourse and the scientific method. Really Warren, it is. If in fact it is missing to a significant degree from the climate debate, then it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that something very odd and unusual is going on. Instead of proof, the alarmists are giving us something unscientific called “consensus” which is not a replacement for proof of a theory. If ALL scientific institutions toe the alarmist party line (as you say) and they are ignoring the contrary evidence from websites like this one, then they have largely abandoned the basis for scientific discourse. Again, very odd. And they have done it for reasons I have been trying to get you to understand. Whether you like it or not Warren, what is admirable in science is defending and keeping alive this basis for scientific discourse.
If you however have that reading comprehension problem I talked about, I am wasting my time and effort trying to get you to comprehend and accept the point in the previous paragraph and everything else that is fishy in the climate debate. In which case, there is no point in arguing with you any longer. End of discussion.
Well, the entire “97% of all climate scientists” claim is based on only 75 out of 77 responses selected from the “government-paid scientists” from over 14,000 surveys mailed out.
So, the vaunted conspiracy only needs 77 people. ALL of whom receive ALL of their money from Big Government and Big Finance.
Warren has yet to produce ANY evidence that a consensus of climate scientist (atmospheric specialist) or for that matter a consensus of any group of scientist have stipulated that human emissions of CO2 will cause catastrophic global disaster of ANY kind.
Warren has failed to produce any statements from any scientific organizations stipulating that human emissions of CO2 will cause catastrophic global disaster of ANY kind.
You now make an even more absurd argument: That the world’s Scientific Institutions, which All conclude AGW, are not in a conspiracy, but that they are ALL somehow knowingly produce fraudulent work products. That’s a distinction without a difference. In your attempts to defend the indefensible, your reach has truly exceeded your grasp.
You want a list of Academies concluding AGW? Here’s a starter list for your impossible dream of finding falsifying data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
And No scientists use the term CAGW. Did you forget.. Again?
warrenlb says [again]:
…the world’s Scientific Institutions, which…&blah, blah, etc.
warrenlb cannot post without falling back on that logical fallacy. His entire argument is based on a fallacy. Thus, he loses the argument.
As David A says:
Warren has yet to produce ANY evidence…
That is warrenlb’s problem. If he were to comment without using his fallacy, he wouldn’t have much to say, because he has no credible evidence. So he falls back on his fallacy in just about every comment.
Give it up, warrenlb. If you cannot debate without relying on a logical fallacy, you are at the wrong site. I suggest you trot on back to Hotwhopper or SkS instead. They just love illogical arguments like yours.
Here at the internet’s Best Science site, we want scientific evidence and logical arguments. You have yet to start.
“the climate and public health benefits from President Obama’s Clean Power Plan outweigh the costs by at least six times.”
Because one of the guys on our team said so after pulling numbers out of his ass.
CD153 says:
Warren, were you ever diagnosed with a reading comprehension problem in school?
I get the same impression. In almost every comment, warrenlb demonstrates the need to trot out his ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. It’s all he has. But he has no understanding of human nature, or of how very easy it is for one activist to divert a Board of Directors onto a new course of action, such as buying into the man-mad global warming [MMGW] narrative.
Prof. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. has written about that here. [See Sec. 2].
warrenlb is so naive that he believes a small group of directors is immune from enticements. Once they buy into the board activist’s suggestion, they are rewarded from all directions. That feels good! So next time it’s much easier to adopt the activist proposal. In no time at all, the organization has adopted the position that MMGW is a fact — a very minor part of its remit, but a major coup for the MMGW narrative. The fact remains that there is not a bit of verifiable evidence showing that MMGW exists. But so what? The organization is now on record, and like any organization from the SCOTUS on down, it hates to admit it was ever wrong. So when the decision is made, it is cast in granite.
warrenlb doesn’t understand human nature, or how each organization has been courrupted in turn. He will not ask himself how a preposterous 100% [!!] of all those diverse disciplines could come to believe the same thing, or why they would go out of their way to take an official stand on something that is unconnected with their disciplines. All warenlb sees is what is being spoon-fed to him: propaganda with a veneer of science.
The propaganda has been successful. It’s a geeat talking point. But as Albert Einstein replied when the Russian Academy wrote an open letter ridiculing his Theory of Relativity, it did not require 100 scientists — but only one fact. So far, there is not one measurable fact supporting MMGW. But that doesn’t matter to warrenlb. He has his talking point. And he repeats it in every comment.
So the only thing DBStealey has left is — ‘they’re all corrupt (except me)’. If anything exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas, it’s that single argument.
No, warrenlb, that is not what I said.
CD153 wrote:
Warren, were you ever diagnosed with a reading comprehension problem in school?
That still applies to warrenlb, the chief head-nodder whenever the ‘consensus’ is mentioned.
warrenlb is hopeless. He has no understanding of human nature, and he probably never will. He’s the perfect target for the purveyors of pseudo-science, eagerly lapping up their talking points. That requires no thinking at all, just a mindless naivete.
So whom should we believe? Prof. Richard Lindzen, who is not afraid to name names, and who shows exactly how the various Boards are commandeered? Or the naive warrenlb; easily one of the most credulous True Believers on this site?
He actually believes that no one is able to be corrupted. What a quaint idea. But it doesn’t apply to the real world, and it never did.
(correcting dbstealey)
No, no. warrenlb believes EVERYBODY who does not believe his religion HAS ALREADY BEEN utterly corrupted (by money that does not exist) and CANNOT be trusted in any way. The Leaders of his religion are the ones demanding that non-believers be killed or segregated, imprisoned, jailed, and ostracized from society. I have not (yet) read warrenlb actually calling for death to non-believers, but his policies and deliberate actions DO cause those millions of deaths from energy deprivation and poverty worldwide.
RACOOKPE1978 says:
“He [warrenlb] actually believes that no one is able to be corrupted.”
No, I never said nor believe that no one can be corrupted. I said it was absurd to claim ALL the World’s Academies of Science (eg, NAS, AAS, Royal Society, Germany, France, China, Japan, etc, etc) are corrupt.
I have no trouble believing that one or two individuals might be screwed up!
“Corruption” is an emotive word. It implies knowingly adopting a false position for personal gain. Institutions don’t do that. They are not personal. That’s why we use them to store ‘truth’.
“Moved from the norm” is a more useful concept. It implies that the “norm” is universally agreed and justified and that moving from it is therefore noticeable.
But the “norm” is not universally agreed (in the science of chaotic systems, little is) and then, we come to justified.
No-one can determine what temperature change is natural and what is man-made. So the “norm” is not justified.
But it is still the “norm” for illogical reasons (politics and echoes of Millennial fears mainly).
It is politically and socially acceptable to believe the world is ending due to CO2. This isn’t open to debate – the attribution problem would make the debate laughably short. We just don’t know.
But try asking why the models all are wrong according to IPCC AR5 and there will be more convoluted excuses than Ptolemy could throw round the Earth.
Yet it is not absurd to claim ALL the World’s Academies of Science (e.g., NAS, AAS, Royal Society, Germany, France, China, Japan, etc., etc.) are going to stick with the “norm”. That is what Academies do.
Scientists do science and Academies defend the orthodoxy. That’s the point of Academies. They are the inertia that science works to move – not dynamic seekers of truth.
MCourtney says:
Institutions don’t do that.
Then what do you call it when an institution is corrupt?
It certainly happens. If there’s another name for it, I’ll use that. But it happens, there is no doubt.
Thanks for the Lindzen link. I liked Holdren’s response:
“The FEW climate-change “skeptics” with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all.”
And “Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the fringe should ask themselves how it is possible, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that: The leaderships of the national academies of sciences of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early, concerted action. This is also the overwhelming majority view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world.”
Holdren says:
…out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments.
Ooh! That stings, doesn’t it, warrenlb? To think that a few scientific skeptics are torpedoeing the bogus alarmist narrative. And all Holdren can do is snivel about it.
But of course Holdren is wrong as always. Scientific skeptics of the man-made global warming [MMGW] narrative far outnumber the alarmist clique — which is the true “fringe”.
And warrenlb wouldn’t be warrenlb if he didn’t trot out his usual logical fallacy. But his “overwhelming majority” never seems to have any names attached, unlike the 32,000 OISM names.
So how about naming them, warrenlb? Post the names of your “majority”.
heh. You can’t, because they are just a small clique of self-serving riders on the grant gravy train.
But give it your best shot, warrenlb: I challenge you to list the names of your putative “majority”. If you cannot post the names of more than 32,000 scientists who believe in MMGW, then all your words mean nothing. You lose.
There’s your challenge, warrenlb. Put up or shut up.
@dbstealey, You still ignore the FACT that all the Science Academies conclude AGW. NO exceptions. You saw Holdren’s list, and my link to the Wikipeida list of the Academies. Now its your turn to find just ONE Academy that doesn’t. Good luck on your impossible search, from your perch as one of the FEW in the FRINGE.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Show me ONE “society” that actually did an unbiased survey of ALL of its members with reasonable questions about global warming and notional political positions BEFORE issuing their political statements in support of the Big Government’s political goals. Each “society” issuing these statements – like the Tau Beta Pi honor society – wrote the statement, wrote the tens of issues of its society’s monthly reports FROM Washington FROM its headquarters FOR its head quarter’s staff BY its head quarter’s staff expressly FOR future political use exactly as you are using it.
Oh wait! “97% of climate scientists” = 75 out of 13,500
(who were sent a 5-question survey in the mail, who answered 2 of the 5 questions asked. Does that mean 97% in climate science = 150 “correct” answers out of 67,500 questions asked?)
And, Warren Pound,
LOL, “you still ignore the FACT” that none of those “Science Academies” has ever proven human CO2 emissions can do ANYTHING to alter the climate of the earth.
You STILL have not answered that issue RESPONSIVELY : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/friday-funny-well-if-i-was-a-denier-i-guess-id-be-on-notice-by-barack-obama/#comment-1864848
After two days, all you have proven is what a fool you are.
Good for target practice.
And that’s about it, Pound.
@JAnice Moore.
So YOU, a random amateur scientist, claim you have proven AGW does not exist, and NONE of The Science Academies — NAS, AAAS, Royal Society, Japan, France, Germany, China, and many more — have it right? You aren’t to be taken seriously.
WP: You just shot another blank. Lots of noise, but no effect.
WP: There’s an invisible cat on that chair.
WUWT: Prove it.
WP: You prove there ISN’T an invisible cat on that chair.
WUWT: There is no observable data that proves it exists. It exists in your imagination only.
WP: Ah! There you go! You can’t see it!
WUWT: ?
WP: THAT PROVES THERE IS AN INVISIBLE CAT!!!
warrenlb is the one not to be taken seriously here. As Robert Cook points out, none of the false authorities that warrenlb mentions have ever conducted a fair and unbiased poll of their membership. A small clique of directors, usually 6 – 12 individuals, presumes to speak for thousands — and sometimes tens of thousands — of dues paying members. But the members are kept out of the decision-making. They are barred from expressing their views.
As Dr. Lindzen shows, all it takes is one activist on the board to put the organization on record. Lindzen names names; something that warrenlb ignores: warrenlb has never responded to my challenge to him. He can’t.
It is very interesting that every organization has taken exactly the same position. There are no diferences at all between them. warrenlb is totally naive and credulous, but most folks aren’t. It is preposterous to believe that EVERY organization is in lock-step on the position of MMGW. How likely is that? Even on a position such as vaccination for children, there is not such a totality of lock-step opinion. But on the wide open question of whether human emissions are the primary cause of global warming — something for which there is no measurable evidence at all — EVERY organization is in lock-step. So the credulous warrenlb drinks their Kool Aid. warrenlb is clearly stupid, but most readers here are not.
The fact that warrenlb is so incredibly naive does not change things. Those institutions have been corrupted, there is no doubt. Otherwise, they would ask their membership. But they don’t, because they damn well know what the answer would be — and it would not be that MMGW is the dominant cause of global changes in temperature.
Why not? Because the members are scientists and engineers. They understand the scientific method, including the climate Null Hypothesis: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. The global climate is exactly the same now as it was a century ago. If human emissions made any difference, there would be measurements of the changes. But there are none. There is not one credible measurement of AGW.
So once again warrenlb hides behind his ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. Take away that logical fallacy, and what does warrenlb have? He has NOTHING. That’s why warrenlb constantly parrots his favorite fallacy.
Why don’t YOU tell us what you have besides your incessant fallacy, warrenlb?
Make it good. Base it on testable measurements. I’ll wait here, while you trot back to your favorite alarmist blog for your latest misinformation.
I am so, so, so very tired of carbon zealots like Ivan Frishberg telling me carbon dioxide is pollution.
Yes, I’m a registered democrat.
Looks like they left out earthquakes, Ebola, and Windows 8.
warrenlb says:
You want a list of Academies concluding AGW?
warrenlb, do you want a list from just one (1) source contradicting your short list?
Check out the OISM Petition. It contains the names of more than 32,000 scientists and engineers, who state that CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere, and that it is harmless.
That is the ‘consensus’, warrenlb. And since you live and die by your ‘consensus’, you lose the argument.
warrenlb has been repeatedly challenged to try and make a credible argument by leaving out his incessant ‘appeal to authority’ fallacies. He cannot do it. warrenlb is apparently not capable of commenting without using that crutch. It forms the basis for his entire argument. He seems to think it matters. It doesn’t.
When a logical fallacy is all that someone has, then they lose the debate. warrenlb seems to believe that by constantly falling back on his fallacy, that he will convince readers of his belief system.
It hasn’t worked, as evenryone can see. Warrenlb has yet to convince anyone — except himself. He certainly has me scratching my head: why would someone expend so much energy trying to promote a logical fallacy?
I can’t answer that. Maybe warrenlb could explain it for us.
Oh that’s rich, DBStealey — citing the Oregon petition as a NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE?
No, a PETITION doesn’t qualify as the US National Academy of Science, or the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, or the French Academy, or the Royal Academy (UK), or the German Academy, or the Chinese Academy, or the Japan Academy. Or any other.
And this ‘Oregon Petition’ had no decent verification of the signers, and pranksters successfully submitted Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and got them included on the list! LOL
Now you have descended into abject silliness.
Yo, warren–I want to know if YOU are more than just an “amateur scientist”.
What’s your CV? What credentials do YOU have?
(By the way, I find it is better to be an “amateur” climate scientist (defined as one who engages in a pursuit on an unpaid basis) than a government-paid tough-feeding ideologue that probably wouldn’t have a job if not for government grants.)
But back to my question–what are your qualifications?
RockyRoad (challenging warrrenlb)
I personnaly do not really care what his “own” credentials are, though I would like to know how qualified he (she ?) is in addressing technical points or questions. It does help in talking with some (or across somebody, since warrenlb has now over 320 comments here, only 18 of which have said anything except:
“All of the priests of my religion are well-paid to say something that only benefits the priests of my religion! Therefore, it must be true despite all the evidence against it.”
But, to date, warrenlb has refused to even tell us how many of his religious texts and papers he has actually read! (Much less understood, researched, written, critiqued, or corrected and discussed with the authors.) Why a religion, not “science”? Because it is a faith-based doctrine based on beliefs that is maintained without evidence, and, thus far, despite all the evidence against it.
So, we do not know anything except what he (she ?) has been told to say. Which is:
“The high priests of my religion say we must destroy the world’s economies and harm billions of people for 85 years to avoid a future that benefits everybody. Except the priests of my religion and the politicians they support, and the politicians who pay them.”
We do know, however, that at least 97% of the priests of his religion (that is, 75 out of 13,500 asked one time) do believe in his religion. We just do not know who they are. And they refuse to tell us.
warrenlb says:
Oh that’s rich, DBStealey — …citing the Oregon petition as a NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE?
I did not cite them as such; warrenlb did.
But since warrenlb has apparently not even looked at the OISM site, I’ll help him out: the past President of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES produced the OISM petition, with the able assistance of many other members of the NAS.
warrenlb claims that isn’t credible. I’ll leave it to readers to make up their own minds as to which is credible — the past President, and members of the NAS, or warrenlb.
@warrenlb:
I am comparing your 6 – 12 anonymous, self-serving board members, with more than 32,000 named scientists and engineers — including more than 9,000 PhD’s. THAT is the comparison.
But as usual, you cannot name even one percent of alarmist scientists who contradict the OISM co-signers. Not even 1%!! And you have again tucked tail, and run away from my challenge to you.
warrenlb says:
…this ‘Oregon Petition’ had no decent verification of the signers, and pranksters successfully submitted Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and got them included on the list!
Liar.
Show us those names on the OISM website. Produce a link! You constantly perpetuate your lie, even after I called you on it. Why do you feel the need to lie about it, warrenlb?
Readers right here have posted that they are OISM co-signers. But you ignore them. And every scientist and engineer is listed on the OISM website by name. If there was even one false name, you can bet that your Chicken Little pals would have found it by now. So instead, you lie about it.
Why do you feel the need to lie, warrenlb? Because it is clear: you are lying.
Is that how low you have sunk? You have no credible scientific argument; all you ever post is your stupid ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacies. And now you are telling lies.
That’s all you’ve got, warrenlb: logical fallacies, and your lies. At first, it was just your fallacies. Now you are lying. Despicable. No wonder you get no respect.
I said ‘You want a list of Academies concluding AGW?’, and I and included a link to multiple pages listing all the Scientific Institutions, including the Academies, concluding AGW.
Then you said: “warrenlb, do you want a list from just one (1) source contradicting your short list? Check out the OISM Petition.”
And I repeat: The OISM is not one of the World’s Science Academies. Do you not know what a National Academy of Science is? Do you need a link?
The OISM has more credibility than any of the world’s science academies, warren.
Why?
Because they’re all a bunch of independently-thinking people whose job doesn’t depend on them marching in lock-step with governments or other groups who excel in confirmation bias.
But I’m still waiting for YOUR CV, warren.
Pray tell, what gives you the acumen to determine if anything in climate science is valid or not?
What are YOUR qualifications?
(This is the second time I’ve asked, and if you have no answer, you obviously have no qualifications.)
warrenlb says:
I said ‘You want a list of Academies concluding AGW?’…
No. My challenge to you was to produce a list of 32,000 names of scientists and engineers who contradict/dispute the OISM statement that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Show us your ‘consensus’.
You never responded with any names.
Then, I asked you to post the names of just 10% of the OISM’s numbers.
You never responded with any names.
Then I challenged you to produce just one percent ot the OISM’s numbers, by name, disputing the OISM’s conclusions
You have never produced even one name. Not one!
All you ever do is repeatedly post your ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. But when push comes to shove, you don’t have a single name to suppport your belief. You’re like the Black Knight with his arms and legs cut off, with just a head on the dirt, saying, “‘Tis but a scratch!”
You’re out of gas, warrenlb. You’ve got nothin’.
@RockyRoad.
You said: “The OISM has more credibility than any of the world’s science academies, warren.”
I say:
If you admire Random amateurs, Engineers, PhDs with no involvement in research in the field — and no vetting of signatures –eg, Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, were included on the list’, then I suppose you might say so.
I posted this Frishberg letter in “tips and notes” (Feb 20, 6:14pm). I guess Anthony is on the same email list – I did not get a hat tip here.
[Fixed. Sorry for the oversight. ~mod.]
The part I liked was this “President Obama is leading … ”
If so, it will be the first time he’s done so as President. I seriously doubt our President could lead people out of a burning building. More likely he’d stand in front of the exit and lecture everyone on how important it was not to panic and that he and his administration would take a leading position on helping those less mobile to get to the front of the exit line.
Then he’d duck out the door.
It isn’t funny anymore, they have now officially resurrected Lysenkoism with a touch of McCarthyism in it:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/24/campaign-to-out-climate-denier/
by going after scientist who not adhere the official scientific hypothesis/theory of the government.
What a sad day for science and for western civilizations, those who do not know history truly are bound to repeat it.