Leaked email shows website Climate Feedback plans a propaganda push under guise of #StandWithScience

Plans to generate a crowd-funding campaign to help silence dissent on news articles.


I’ve received this from two independent sources, which is said to be from a mailing list being circulated, and I believe it to be genuine. Climate Feedback is a website that rates news stories on climate on their “factuality”, but it has one major flaw: it is entirely one-sided, biased, and without checks or balances. You have to apply, and they decide if you get into the club or not. Of course, skeptical scientists need not apply based on their mission statement. They say:

Today’s media climate leads to confusion

With so much information available online, trying to figure out which information is credible — and what is not — is a real challenge. When so much of what we read falls outside of our own expertise, how can we know which headlines and news articles are consistent with science?

Yet they are the ones who decide what is credible under the guise of “peer review”. It has become abundantly clear that “peer review” is severely broken and biased, especially in the microcosm of climate due this one-minded consensus. The efforts of “Climate Feedback” amounts to little more than an organized consensus used to suppress alternate viewpoints and ideas about climate. Their list of people who get to do the reviewing makes Shukla’s RICO 20 look like a small time amateur operation.

Below is the leaked email contents. The fact that they put Mann and Oreskes, who are prone to hateful and irrational outbursts on social media, front and center, says a lot about their viewpoint and biases.

Climate Feedback works like this: Using the new web-annotation platform Hypothesis, scientists verify facts and annotate online climate articles, layering their insights and comments on top of the original story. They then issue a “5-star” rating so readers can quickly judge stories’ scientific credibility. Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others, Climate Feedback is already improving journalistic standards by flagging misreported climate science in mainstream outlets; earlier this month, for example, scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg’s misleading op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This is only a hint of what Climate Feedback has in store as it begins to aggregate those credibility scores into a wider index, rating major news sources on their reporting of climate change as part of a new Scientific Trust Tracker.

To that end, Climate Feedback is launching a crowd funding campaign on April 27 around the hashtag #StandWithScience, supported by leading climate minds like Profs. Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes and others. I invite you to take a look at this sneak preview of our campaign (NOTE: please do not share publicly before April 27). The Exxon climate scandal has already made its way into the 2016 election season, but few have discussed the role the media has played enabling corporate interests to sow doubt about the science of climate change, which has long confused the public and undermined political support for dealing with the issue. As 350.org founder Bill McKibben said of Climate Feedback: Scientists are just about ready to come out of the lab and get more active and when they do, it will make a remarkable difference.

Note: within 5 minutes of publication, this post was edited to correct a redundant word and a missing word, along with a formatting error.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 21, 2016 10:58 am

Utterly *******shameless.

Real Chemist
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 22, 2016 1:11 am

Isn’t Shameless Bird Mann the one who a guy called a liar,
and he sued the guy
and lied in the filing he was a Nobel winner when he wasn’t one,
and so therefore the guy who told everybody he’s a shameless liar,
was defaming a Nobel Laureate?
Isn’t Shameless Bird Mann also the one who told the Congress,
that a man had bored some holes into some trees and taken the wood out,
and that Shameless Bird had written a ”highly sophisticated climate math computer program”
that whispered to Shameless Bird that the trees were saying ”the world’s gonna end?”
And that ”Congress couldn’t have his ”trees are whispering the world is gonna end climate math” program
the world might not end, and if it didn’t, Shameless Bird Mann would need some money,
so he might have to SELL his ”trees whisper to me it’s the end of the world computer program”
because the world didn’t really end.
And then Shameless Bird accidentally forgot the ”trees are whispering to me the world is gonna end”
”highly sophisticated climate math computer program”
on an ftp server and a guy downloaded it and ran it… and it came up
and hundreds,
upon hundreds, of Hockey Stick graphs,
using calibration data to see if it tested flat when -the input was flat…
Shameless, Bird is a lying criminal Mann.
Between him, and Phil Jones admitting in his disastrous Feb 2010 BBC don’t-go-to-jail interview he’d forged every tenth warming he put on a database since 1998,
after climategate saw him telling scientist John Christy ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. OK it HAS but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant,”
and what with ”Heating Supplies are Death Trains To Auchwitz”
“I’ll retire climing into a rowboat from my window” Hansen
telling people the law of chemistry written to solve gas temperature can’t calculate the temperature of air,
thirty years,
those AGW-billies have got a *storm of fraudulent lying* to engage in to see to it
none of the government administrators
who told Al Gore the world was ending,
goes to jail.
Al Gore owned cable networks, (the one he sold to Al Jazeera, the oil country royalty owned islamic news group)
and he made the outright threat that if people didn’t want the power of the US Federal government moving against them, they had better not argue with him and his government administrator and computer programmer friends.
And yet they can be set in panic by telling them to show they can name the law of thermodynamics written for calculating the temperature of gas and atmospheric mixtures.
If they can’t ban the world’s working scientists mocking them to their faces for not being able to calculate the temperature of air,
they do like that schmuck Gavin Schmidt and walk off a television stage rather than be caught describing his scam.

April 21, 2016 11:00 am

“…the role the media has played enabling corporate interests to sow doubt about the science of climate change.” Huh? I thought it was the media presstituting for climate change. How can they say such a thing? The media is their #1 tool.

Reply to  Gary
April 21, 2016 11:42 am

They have to have some kind of explanation for why people are not buying what they are selling, so the news media is an easy target.
You are correct, the Liberal News Media is the best friend the Alarmists have.

Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 1:47 pm

The MSM has become the Propaganda Ministry supporting strictly far-left agendas. Herr Goebbels would have been impressed and taken notes.

Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 3:06 pm

Scientists are just about ready to come out of the lab and get more active and when they do, it will make a remarkable difference.
Yes Tim Flannery made such an impression. Even the rain that falls will not fill our dams, 18 months later floods everywhere and dams overflowing. We could do with some more difference.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Gary
April 21, 2016 11:48 am

Quite so. I can’t see how the most MSM could get any more biased for CAGW as they already are.
But on the positive side: More and more people realize how propagandistic and totalitarian the MSM have become and will learn “to read between the lines”…

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
April 21, 2016 11:58 am

There was an article on Drudge a few days ago about a study that found that only 6% of people trusted what they were getting from the main stream media.

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
April 21, 2016 12:22 pm

“More and more people realize how propagandistic and totalitarian the MSM have become and will learn “to read between the lines”…”
They have become MSM skeptics! The news media’s blatant dishonesty is teaching them to take everything with a grain of salt, thus creating more skeptics. 🙂

Get Real
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
April 23, 2016 12:07 pm

Or ‘read between the lies’.

Reply to  Gary
April 21, 2016 2:59 pm

Not prostrate enough for new green high priests.

Reply to  Gary
April 21, 2016 4:38 pm

“Blame your opponents of that which you are guilty.”

April 21, 2016 11:02 am

Jerry Brownian by design

April 21, 2016 11:03 am

…. just saying

Reply to  philincalifornia
April 21, 2016 11:29 am


David Smith
Reply to  Neil
April 21, 2016 3:58 pm


Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 21, 2016 9:50 pm

Why is the skeptic side always behind and playing catch up? Reactionary rather than proactive? More of us need to read The Art of War – Sun Tzu
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
“To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
“All warfare is based on deception.”

Robert of Texas
April 21, 2016 11:04 am

I guess this falls under free speech…there is no law against stupidity, or propaganda. Its only a matter of time until they manage to get climate skepticism labeled as Hate Speech. SIgh.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 21, 2016 11:07 am


Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 21, 2016 1:30 pm

There’s no law against off-shoring your money either. But for some reason the Panama Papers is a huge scandal.

Reply to  TomB
April 21, 2016 1:52 pm

You can off-shore your money all you want, but you have to declare it and pay taxes. It is a huge scandal because they “hid” their money off-shore.

David Smith
Reply to  TomB
April 21, 2016 4:01 pm

Most of them didn’t break the law. They were just financially wise.
The people complaining are just jealous of their wealth, that’s all.

Reply to  TomB
April 21, 2016 6:35 pm

“just jealous of their wealth,”
Nah, just fed up with tax dodgers while the rest of us are trapped with payroll deductions. And, much like the crooked politicians, it’s always those with insider contacts that could really afford to pay that don’t. Much of the gov. debt probs would disappear if all paid their fair share, and another major plus is that a lot of corporate lawyers would be out of a job too.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 21, 2016 1:34 pm

SXSW Eco, Austin, Texas
“Creates a space for business leaders, investors, innovators, and designers to drive economic, environmental and social change.”
Advisory Board includes:
Jigar Shah, was a Director of Greenpeace, U.S.
Amu Gilbert, UN Foundation
Carey Meyers, The Rockefeller Foundation
And others
For those in Colorado:
AREDAY/ American Renewable Energy Day, Aspen Snowmass, CO
Featured at the 2014 Summit included:
Bill McKibben
Tom Steyer
Bill Rritter
Amory Lovins,
Trip Van Noppen
Bill Becker
And others.
There have been other AREDAY Summits.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Barbara
April 21, 2016 1:58 pm

Last time Aspen hosted one of these there were 7 Gulfstreams and a Falcon 50 parked at the Pitkin County Airport. I’m sure Steyer will claim that driving his Prius offsets the 30,000 lbs of Jet A that he goes through in a week.

David Smith
Reply to  Barbara
April 21, 2016 4:03 pm

I was going to make a comment about flights, but Mark said it way better than me.

Reply to  Barbara
April 21, 2016 4:34 pm

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va) voted no on the Keystone XL pipeline bill Nov.18, 2014.
Jay, John D. Rockefeller IV, is now retired fro the U.S. Senate.

Reply to  Barbara
April 22, 2016 11:09 am

The Climate Change Task Force/www.climatechangetaskforce.org
Home page features:
William Becker
Sir David King
Mikhail Gorbachev
And others
Home page features a photo of Gorbachev with Kim Campbell.
Green Media News, Dec.15, 2009
‘Joint Letter to Canadian PM Harper Urges Action in Wake of Considerable Criticism of Canada at COP15’
Signers Included;
Kim Campbell, Former PM Canada
Bill Becker
Mikhail Gorbachev
And others

Paul Westhaver
April 21, 2016 11:06 am

The evil amongst us have to influence the numerous stupid with sloganism and scientism. Free speech, reason and truth has given way to thought police, tyranny by the ignorant masses and propaganda of utter lies. Has tag this… hash tag that… Twitter is a motive force for the dim wits.
Edward Bernays a la Saul Alinsky has really triumphed hasn’t he?
TWIT er?

April 21, 2016 11:12 am

When you have the support of Jerry Brown, Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes you have placed your biases front and center for the world to see!!!

April 21, 2016 11:13 am

Anthony, did you mean ” stories ” not STORES??
” I’ve received this from two independent sources, which is said to be from a mailing list being circulated, and I believe it to be genuine. Climate Feedback is a website that rates stores on climate on their “factuality”,

Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 21, 2016 12:05 pm

Whew..I was worried you were saying that they are selling climate in stores now !! LOL

Roy Spencer
April 21, 2016 11:14 am

3 spelling and grammer problems in the 1st paragraph still. I see them easily in others’ posts..not so easily in my own.

Reply to  Roy Spencer
April 21, 2016 11:46 am

OK, so you do know that it should be “grammar” then? 🙂

Reply to  graphicconception
April 21, 2016 12:09 pm

..That’s the Canadian spelling !! LOL

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Roy Spencer
April 21, 2016 11:51 am

“Grammer” ??!
President Jackson had it right, it’s a poor mind can think of but one way to spell a word.
: > )

Reply to  Juan Slayton
April 21, 2016 12:43 pm

I can think of loads of ways to spell a word – unfortunately all but one are incorrect!

April 21, 2016 11:14 am


Reply to  Hans Erren
April 22, 2016 6:52 am

George Orwell has got to be laughing….

April 21, 2016 11:15 am

I took the bother to click on a few of the “fact” check. Many of them only comment on one section of the article, i.e.:
Article: “X could happen if Y happens”.
Quoted text in comment: “…X could happen…”
Commenter: “This statement is true.”
No comment on how reasonable Y is.

April 21, 2016 11:16 am

Well, at least I’ll have an idea of the quality of the article. Any articles with 0-1 stars are likely to be worth the time to read. Any with 4-5 stars are likely to be dogma and propaganda from the Church of CAGW… That’ll make them easy to avoid or, depending on the website, troll mercilessly until banned. 🙂 I think I could warm up to this kind of idiocy, assuming it doesn’t get me thrown in jail as a political prisoner first.

Reply to  SMC
April 22, 2016 6:10 am

My guess is you will have to look real hard for a 0 or 1 star rating.
Generally, they won’t be even identified for reading much less rated.

April 21, 2016 11:22 am

This just keeps getting worse and worse. I hope it is because people who speak the truth are hitting the propagandists where it hurts, and they are becoming desperate. Some of these ideas they are coming up with seem a bit like a drowning man grasping at straws.

Reply to  Caleb
April 21, 2016 11:50 am

I think you are very correct. Gandi’ aphorism comes to mind: first they ignore you, then they ridicule you (d word), then they fight you, then you win. We are at the fight stage.

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 12:12 pm

“I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our (scepticism) …. , to outlive the menace of tyranny ….
we shall fight on the (rising) seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the (CO2 saturated) air,
we shall fight on the (sinking) beaches.”
as WC would have put it.

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 1:05 pm

LOL, awesome Vukcevic !!

April 21, 2016 11:26 am

” It has become abundantly clear that “peer review” is severely broken”
couldn’t agree more.
peer review journals are a nineteenth century innovation that has little relevance today
we are now in the age of open review
readers must take more responsibility
nobody’s going to feed you information that is guaranteed to be correct’

April 21, 2016 11:29 am

Happy Birthday to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Reply to  vukcevic
April 21, 2016 11:46 am

Happy birthday. We love the Queen.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 11:57 am

Indeed! Especially the fact that her brain-dead son will not become King as long she remains in place… 😉

Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 12:01 pm

I’m reminded of the words of one of the left wing chief justices while Reagan was president.
Something to the affect that if he died, he wanted to be stuffed and propped up in his chair until a Democrat was elected.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 2:00 pm

I’ve often wondered how such a gracious and thoughtful person could have such a buffoon for a son.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 21, 2016 3:57 pm

Happy birthday to a very gallant Lady, Queen Elizabeth II !

April 21, 2016 11:37 am

They are late to the game. WUWT has been doing this for years.

Reply to  GTL
April 21, 2016 12:02 pm

WUWT excludes warmists????

Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2016 12:07 pm

You don’t visit here often, do you? Even the skeptics here criticize skeptical articles.
True that ignorant trolls are not tolerated well, but anyone with valid criticism is welcome.

April 21, 2016 11:41 am

well, they are going to create another web site…..that no one is going to look at

Reply to  Latitude
April 21, 2016 11:50 am

That’s what I was thinking, too.

Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 12:54 pm

Its almost as if…someone gets PAID per website. Nah…

April 21, 2016 11:41 am

I wish we would crowd fund a share holder lawsuit against Exxon Mobil management, to find out what they knew, and when they learned it. If I was Exxon Mobil CEO, I’d want a report every 3 to 5 years, max, about what climate science implies about my business. Certainly, I would expect that Exxon Mobil scientists “knew” not only about premature, and now invalidated, CO2 catastrophist theories of the 1980’s, but also about the “pause”, Nir Shaviv’s work, Svensmark’s work, etc., etc. This is the sort of information that a legal discovery process might yield. The CO2 catastrophists are not going to go away. Should we wait until they get RICO lawsuits going against Anthony Watts and other “climate change deniers”, before we get aggressive?

Reply to  metamars
April 21, 2016 12:12 pm

These AG’s are going to have enough trouble with prosecuting Exxon and CEI. I don’t see how the AG’s prevail under the law. They have no case. So they are just blowing smoke in an effort to intimidate all the other skeptics.
They are not going to drag private citizen, Anthony Watts into this. Unless they are completely crazy.
There is no big outcry right now over Exxon’s prosecution because it is a corporation which doesn’t elicit much sympathy from the general public, but when they start involving private citizens in this kind of thing, the outcry will be huge. I guarantee it.
I have news for the prosecutors: The skeptics are not going to shut up. In the United States, we have the freedom to say any d@mn thing we want to say. You just try putting a stop to that. The AG’s will be the ones going to jail.

Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 2:12 pm

The AG’s are going to learn a lesson on scientific proof. Make them prove the components of climate change – separate the effects of human activity from natural causes. Proof will become impossibly elusive. They also have to prove that climate change is unnatural. Climate change is unavoidable and is necessary for a dynamic planet. Without climate change, things would probably get in a rut, which would probably be disastrous for life itself.

Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 2:33 pm

I don’t think it’s a case of the corporation not getting much sympathy, more likely that people see “big business” and figure there must be stuff they don’t understand, making it too soon to take sides. There’s not the number against fuel companies than alarmists like to imagine.

Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 5:20 pm

Even if the skeptics do not “shut up”, and Anthony Watts (et. al.) never come to any legal grief, Exxon Mobil is a BAD ACTOR in the climate change controversy. Their management MUST have been following it closely enough to have a good sense of what’s been happening, or else they are grossly negligent. For whatever reason, as this is so vital to the future of the company, and thus of the shareholders’ stake in it, the shareholders owe it to themselves to force Exxon to correct course, and become a GOOD ACTOR.
There would be other side benefits (to non-shareholders) to forcing Exxon Mobil to release privately held documents, indicating what they knew, and when they knew it. Mark Steyn is being sued by Michael Mann (for “defamation”). I’m no lawyer, but had Exxon used their considerable marketing muscle to educate the American and Canadian publics about the real state of climate science, I think Mann’s suit would have been less likely. And less likely to succeed, even when attempted.
“Fortune favors the bold”. Why be mousy, and let the Naomi Oreskes’ of this world frame the meta-science debate? And what of scientific ethics? Climate science is not the only science that has gone SERIOUSLY awry. While the title is sensationalistic (read: exaggerated), just today I read “6 Reasons Why Most Scientific Research is Fake, False or Fraudulent” (see http://tinyurl.com/gv9klsw ) Why should society tolerate widespread fraud in any science?
So, there are a NUMBER of reasons to sue Exxon Mobil management, and crowd-funding could negate the biggest (only?) downside.

Reply to  metamars
April 21, 2016 3:42 pm

I still think it is just coercive gangster government. A mafia-like shakedown. They just extorted several tens of billions from the banks over the past couple of years. They shook BP down for $20 billion. Toyota got its pockets picked. VW is in the crosshairs. Yet nobody ever goes to jail. Just use the force of government to steal from stockholders.

April 21, 2016 11:44 am

O.T. but can any one explain Gavin’s new funky graph ???

Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 12:04 pm

These guys are desperate to spin the current El Nino as climate.
What are they going to do later in the year and next year after temperatures fall?

Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2016 12:51 pm

I think they are screwed then. Yes, El Nino was the only thing keeping them in this game.

Reply to  MarkW
April 21, 2016 2:35 pm

“What are they going to do later in the year and next year after temperatures fall?”
Blame the weather, obviously.

Steve T
Reply to  MarkW
April 22, 2016 4:26 am

“These guys are desperate to spin the current El Nino as climate.
What are they going to do later in the year and next year after temperatures fall?”
They’re going to keep as quiet as they can and hope nobody notices what’s happening.
“Oh, look a squirrel” !

Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 12:15 pm


A guy living in a domain of his own making has his own climate.

Reply to  GTL
April 21, 2016 12:20 pm

Ugh! His

Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 12:50 pm

Oh Marcus:
Simple, the Y axis is the final temp for the year, the X axis is the temp for the first 3 months. In essence, you take the first three months to predict the year final. The plot is a whole bunch of years with 3 mo vs. year final to create a calibration curve. It would be a nice diversion for a rainy day. Maybe try out your new install of R-Studio, that sort of thing.
What is fun is to read the tweet thread. Gavin claims an El-Nino year is no different from any other. (just a bit higher C.I.) No matter that the beginning of the year has the highest anomaly, and its all downhill from there.

Reply to  TonyL
April 21, 2016 1:38 pm

..Gavin doesn’t allow me on his thread anymore !! LOL

Reply to  TonyL
April 21, 2016 2:06 pm

And worthless –other than a piece of propaganda– without separating the individual data points into El Nino, La Nina, and neutral years.

Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 1:15 pm

Why would anyone take seriously anything the GISS says about climate is beyond me.

Reply to  rah
April 21, 2016 1:37 pm

..Taxpayers money ???

Reply to  rah
April 21, 2016 2:18 pm

Sure it’s our money and they’re using it for their agenda but what you gonna do about it? My comment was aimed specifically at how miserable their output on climate science is and not the travesty that it’s produced with taxpayers money.
This #StandWithScience is nothing but a climate news version of the “fact checkers” which the media created to try and bolster it’s own flagging credibility. To me it is a sure sign that the government is failing to influence the people they way they want with their scary climate stories and realize that they are losing. So their team of supporters and contributors are creating their own “fact checker”.
The way I see it if journalists did real journalism there would be no need for “fact checkers” and if government climate scientists and their paid hired hands actually did real science there would be no need for #StandWithScience.

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  rah
April 22, 2016 1:10 am

If you like your “Climate scientist”, you can keep your “Climate Scientist”!

Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 2:07 pm

Beats me. I spent a while looking at this. It seems that he has discovered an amazing, almost linear relationship between the anom. of the first three months and the anom. for the full year. ( On the Nobel short list for sure ).
However, I had no idea how he gets to to 2016 Jan-Mar anom being fully 0.5 deg C warmer than this year. With speed that the ENSOmeter is dropping already, I’d say there’s a lot more chance of it being 0.5 deg C COOLER by next year.
That’s what’s to great about doing “science” on twitter. There’s not room to explain what you mean or how you got there, you just bang up an outrageous claim and a couple #hashtags and wait for you fawning followers to click you into a virtual orgasm of self-importance.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 4:38 pm

Gee, he predicts it…and can influence whether or not it comes true. Literally self-fulfilling.

Bruce Cobb
April 21, 2016 11:44 am

What a capital idea, having known serial Climate Liars decide what is or isn’t true about new articles. That’s just peachy keen. Their desperation these days knows no bounds.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 21, 2016 1:22 pm

It looks to me to be the same scam as “Face Checkers” for the general media. They were created to prop up the credibility of the media because they already knew their credibility was melting away. This site serves the same function for the alarmists. So I see it as a sign they know their losing the PR battle and failing to gain the influence over the publics perception of climate that they want.
Fact is if journalists actually did journalism there would be know need for “Fact Checkers” and if Climate scientists actually did science there would be no need for “standwithscience”

Reply to  rah
April 21, 2016 2:14 pm

True. Plus many.

April 21, 2016 11:45 am

The old scientific method of having others verify your results through independent analyses and sometimes having pesky detractors refute your work is simply too hard. Nu science is easy: 1) State your desired conclusion and explicitly state unequivocal certainty as well as moral high-ground, 2) Hand pick a committee that conforms to the desired conclusion and declare them the divine authority on all scientific knowledge, 3) Indoctrinate the laymen to this dogm…err nu science and incite vitriol against any hereti…err opponents.

April 21, 2016 11:46 am

From the article:
“When so much of what we read falls outside of our own expertise, how can we know which headlines and news articles are consistent with science?”
You could use logic.

Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 2:47 pm

Of course they don’t want anyone doing that.
Actually I think you’ve captured the point. They fail so badly (and will continue to do so) because they treat people as stupid children who need to be led by the hand and told who to trust and what to think – and when to march in protest.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  TA
April 21, 2016 6:20 pm

Or do a little research. Never has so much info been available for [human] browsing in the history of the planet.

April 21, 2016 11:47 am

Quote from the letter….” (NOTE: please do not share publicly before April 27). ”

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 12:01 pm


April 21, 2016 11:53 am

There is no Exxon climate scandal. There has been a concerted effort by folks like these to manufacture one out of thin air and misrepresentations, that will very likely backfire.

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 2:51 pm

Yep, I’ve got the popcorn ready and some beer in the fridge. I’m looking forward to the show. The CEI backlash will be well worth watching also, and is up first by the look of it.

Leon Brozyna
April 21, 2016 11:56 am

An official go-to site for all that’s correct and proper thinking about the climate, aka – dogma. Thinking’s not necessary, required or approved; just submit, obey, conform.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
April 21, 2016 12:09 pm

SkS tried to provide one. Didn’t work even with disappeared comments. RealClimate tried to provide one even with disappeared comments. It is very hard to be pursuasive about warmunism when it isn’t warming.

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 12:31 pm

“It is very hard to be pursuasive about warmunism when it isn’t warming.”
You nailed it.

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 2:11 pm

“It is very hard to be pursuasive about warmunism when it isn’t warming.”
A very good point……
But obviously one we don’t have to *worry* about.
Thanks for pointing out the climbing temps just the same.

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 2:27 pm

Toneb, thank for posting the newest, hot off the press, Karlized version of surface temps. Now go back and compare to previous NOAA versions. You don’t have to do that yourself. Tony Heller already did it for you, many times, at Real Science. You might also try comparing 1979 forward to RSS and UAH. You know, to keep the game more honest.
For grins, you would NOT enjoy reading essay When Data Isnt in my newest ebook. Its a bargain at Amazon. And you can read my post here on Karlization for free. Please do.
OTOH, thanks for demonstrating natural variability in the period prior to 1975 even in the Karlized surface temp data. An unexplained miracle how natural variability just disappeared completely about 1975 when temperature became purely CO2’s fault.
If you want to troll here, you will have to up your game.

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 9:11 pm

‘The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997’ – https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
‘ the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)’ – https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
1.62+57.0=58.62. 3.83°F below 1997. Proudly brought to you by NOAA.

April 21, 2016 12:01 pm

You know you are on the right track when the opposition is trying to shut you up.

April 21, 2016 12:06 pm

In a funny sense, Mckibben’s last quote is correct. ‘Scientists’ like Mann and Oreskes (and Trenberth, and Schmidt, and Karl, and Santer, and Hansen) have been out of the lab tryingnto sell warmunism for many years. Only buyers were watermelons. When real scientists start stepping out of the lab they will make a difference. Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen and John Christy already have. Just the opposite of what McKibben thinks.

Hats off...
April 21, 2016 12:09 pm

Oh! The hubris…It burns! Funding from Big Al?

April 21, 2016 12:13 pm

SMC: “Any articles with 0-1 stars…”
I suggest someone quickly set up a website that simply uses the inverse of their rating – wouldn’t be a lot of work, and might provide a valuable resource to who in the media is actually getting it right. I’m guessing it would quickly get more page views than theirs as well.

April 21, 2016 12:14 pm

Looks like a lack of money has prompted bunch of zealots to together to try for another funding source.
“Climate Feedback is launching a crowd funding campaign on April 27”
“Peak funding” may have occurred sooner than was projected … the societal changes will be too difficult/numerous project, but we can be sure fallout will affect all socioeconomic strata blah blah blah

Reply to  DonM
April 21, 2016 1:06 pm

yes- i sense that also.
also, we know that the fuzzywarmies’ sanctum sanctorum has been infiltrated and their deepest secrets are not hidden from skeptical eyes.
one of the highlights of a mole hunt is that it institutionalizes inquisitors, protectors of the faith = internal thought police.
everybody loves the thought.police. they must detect and punish because they are the real guardians of Destiny.
my schadenfreude gland tumesces in anticipation of the splendid autos da fe in the coming season.

April 21, 2016 12:18 pm

Wait A Minute…… Hold The Road…… What Is Going On Here
Just yesterday Capt. Capitalism reports on an identical system getting established targeting Social Justice Warrior issues. Now, I do not care about SJW stuff, and I am sure most WUWT readers do not either. The SJW effort calls itself Social Autopsy. These two efforts seem identical in operation and intent.
They endeavor to scour the media for stories on their topic and then use “experts” to rate them for conformance to their worldview. Then to carry on one step further, compile all these ratings to create ratings for the source organizations. Such a compiled ratings list is nothing short of a blacklist.
And the chance of two disparate fields of study such as Global Warming and Social Justice coming up with the same scheme independently is?
Here is the link to Capt. Capitalism:
Scroll to “Who is Candace Owens of Social Autopsy?” and follow the link for more info. The link is to a video, which I did not want to link to directly. (too far O/T)

April 21, 2016 12:22 pm

“Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others,”
I’m curious as to how much monetary support they have received from the (referenced) esteemed groups and individuals that have recognized them.

April 21, 2016 12:27 pm

Marcus: Can anyone explain Gavin’s funky graph…
Looking at the plot and the axes, it appears his point is that (roughly) what ever the anomaly is in the first 3 months of the year, that will be the anomaly for the entire year (give or take a few tenths of a degree). If that the case, then it’s not the summers that are the driver for warming, but rather the winters. if it was summers, then Jan-Mar anomalies would be significantly lower than the annual anomaly. I wonder if he realizes how that contradicts the alarm about scorching heat waves? For me up here in Maine, a few degrees warmer in the winter would solve a lot of problems, including helping poor people afford to stay warm. Higher energy costs are the most regressive tax of all, and if Gavin is right (snark, snark), the problem will be solved!

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
April 21, 2016 1:03 pm

..Taylor, that is exactly how I read it. but I thought, he can’t really be that dumb can he !! I assumed I was mistaken..silly me … It is Gavin, after all . ; )

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
April 21, 2016 1:59 pm

And, particularly the northern hemisphere winter, at that.
Should go back and look at the pattern of temp adjustments for JFM in the cooked NH histories. We might find a bit of ‘anomalyzation’ there.
And, the correlation (if any) with JFM temps in Alaska, Siberia and Australia.

April 21, 2016 12:35 pm

But Oreskes is an historian, not a climate scientist.

Reply to  DHR
April 21, 2016 12:44 pm

Geologist who tried to become history of science, but then drank warmunist cool-aid at Berkeley and began a long downward spiral into fantasy land with dreck like Merchants of Doubt and climate science fiction like The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future.

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 1:36 pm

But if the warming is caused by greenhouse gases emitted at the surface and largely trapped in the lower atmosphere, then we expect the troposphere to warm, but the stratosphere to cool.

Oresekes quote from “Merchants of Doubt”

Reply to  ristvan
April 21, 2016 3:02 pm

That detail she got right. She got wrong the main thesis analogy to big tobacco.

Reply to  DHR
April 21, 2016 12:49 pm

She is a geologist.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  DHR
April 21, 2016 6:25 pm

And that’s being academically polite, but not close to the nub of reality…

April 21, 2016 12:35 pm

Obviously they know they will be out of a job once President Trump takes the reins !! Gotta feed their cats somehow !! LOL

April 21, 2016 12:41 pm

If only life were so simple.
All newspaper articles could be rated for “truthfulness”.
I would be especially keen to turn to the business and finance section – to verify the truthfulness of all contained therein and subsequently make my fortune.
Accordingly, economics experts and social engineers could simply defer to the judgement of the self-styled council of truth and all of the problems of the world would melt away over night.
Plus – all of the contradictory advice over nutritional topics would be vanquished and we would all know exactly what diet was perfectly suited to our needs.
Of course, academic experts will also be able to confirm that individual characteristics are mostly determined by nature. Or by nurture. Or by a precisely quantified blend of both nature and nurture.
And having identified the source of differences of race and gender and social advantage then we will see how best to address issues of racism and sexism in society. A matter on which there is certainly no shortage of academic interest and “research”.
I look forward to being able to confirm the precise truth in relation to all such matters.
I assume that we will discover that all left-wing views are scientifically correct and all right-wing views are based on prejudice and greed. Obviously.
And then once the truth is finally established – then we shall be able to eliminate all critical discourse and create a perfect utopian society in which independent thought is unnecessary.
It’s not so hard to imagine that such a world awaits us.
(Warning above contains sarc.)

April 21, 2016 12:42 pm

O.T. again, but very funny !
The Weather Network has a scientist claiming CO2 from volcanoes “eradicated a large part of earth’s wildlife.” 200 million years ago ! They have WWE superstar Chris Jericho explains volcanoes !! LOL

April 21, 2016 12:48 pm

This appears to me to be a centralized/official CAGW “talking point” dissemination system more than anything else . . A troll fueling station ; )

April 21, 2016 12:49 pm

“Harnessing the power of the internet to amplify confirmation bias to heights heretofore undreamed!”

Thin Air
April 21, 2016 1:08 pm

Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor, University of Bristol, is also one of their reviewers.

Reply to  Thin Air
April 21, 2016 1:38 pm

Lew will do all the conspiracy stuff. You know, the Exxon ‘scandal’ noted by the email. Big oil funding den1er sites like WUWT. All those obviously good journalism articles he will undoubtedly rate highly. He is the acknowledged expert at climate conspiracy ideation.
Mann is there to rank down any articles about MWP, Vikings in Greenland, LIA, cause his hockey stick showed those things actually did not happen, and he has a Nobel to show for it.
Oreskes rates future climate catastrophe articles, based on her newest ‘history of science’ book about the future. Nothing like the history of the future written in the past. True Harvard professor genius. She will be very busy cause there are so many articles and they are all SOO catastrophic.
They need to recruit Tom Karl to karlize any temperature articles.

Richard Keen
April 21, 2016 1:14 pm

This seems to stem from the concept that balanced reporting biases the discussion toward the “wrong” side, and should therefore be eliminated via censorship. This was eloquently presented by the Boykoff Bros. a decade ago:
Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press
“Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias – Creating controversy where science finds consensus.”
By Jules Boykoff and Maxwell Boykoff
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) http://www.fair.org Extra! November/December 2004
“A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming, superficial balance—telling “both” sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias.”
Balance is Bias
– Boykoff Brothers, 2004
War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery.
– Big Brother, 1984
Censorship is FAIR.

April 21, 2016 1:19 pm

..I wonder who keeps leaking all these Emails !! Can we give them a ” Medal of Honesty ” ??

April 21, 2016 1:20 pm

“Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown …… supported by leading climate minds like Profs. Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes …”
Now there’s a rogue’s gallery!

Steve Fraser
Reply to  markl
April 21, 2016 2:01 pm

Recognized as what, exactly?

Reply to  Steve Fraser
April 21, 2016 3:17 pm

Good question.

April 21, 2016 1:40 pm

Off topic, I’m afraid, but there’s unsettling activity in Yellowstone that isn’t making the news anywhere. It’s a little concerning.

Reply to  bazzer1959
April 21, 2016 1:50 pm

..Umm, a link would be really helpful !!

Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 2:07 pm

But that’s the very trouble I pointed out – no news, just some ‘alarmist’ sites reporting it:

Reply to  Marcus
April 21, 2016 3:07 pm

..Bazzer, it’s nothing new..Yellowstone does it all the time, and the alarmists Hype and Exaggerate it all the time ! When Yellowstone starts shaking and quaking large, then we might have a problem, but it still has nothing to do with climate or temperature !

Reply to  bazzer1959
April 21, 2016 2:48 pm

Well then those people sitting on those benches waiting for Old Faithful to blow better hightail it outta there:
BTW this propaganda push is not going to fly. There is too much real science being done by scientists who are nice and more intelligent than than the ones mentioned in the email. And Jerry Brown??? – Please.

April 21, 2016 1:50 pm

#StandWithScience The consensus canard becomes a lot more entertaining after learning what passes as a “climate scientist”.
My curiosity drove me to do a sampling of returns from a Google search on the terms ‘climate science curriculum graduate degree program’. The process was non scientific since I simply proceeded in ‘Google relevancy’ order until I felt I had acquired a very good picture of what academia is currently offering. I looked at around 40-50 institutions offering MS or PhD degrees with some self proclaimed association with climate science. I was specifically looking at the mathematics and physics courses mandated as requirements for each degree.
Of those programs, the vast majority of Master of Science programs required one to two undergraduate-equivalent calculus courses and generally one statistics course; physics courses were almost totally ignored. The odd PhD level science program added maybe an additional course but they were the exception rather than the rule. A large proportion of ‘science’ programs were oriented toward perfectly valid – but decidedly nontechnical – social sciences, governmental policy, or environmental impact fields. One program added an introductory course in numerical computing. Another required a course in differential equations, the underlying calculus, and one course in thermodynamics but it was specifically called out as an atmospheric sciences program.
The implication being that most climate science programs turn out graduates that simply aren’t equipped to critically evaluate technical issues. Statistical evaluation of data, analysis of variance, gas dynamics, numerical modeling, and the host of other hard science fundamentals are simply not in their lexicon By no means am I suggesting that there aren’t qualified individuals out there but they are much more likely to have a background in atmospherics than ‘climate science’. Consensus among what academia labels a climate scientists is a fiat currency; a belief that someone somewhere has done the math and done it correctly. They are scientists unequipped and totally unable to evaluate or replicate the claims for themselves. For what it’s worth, most of the “97%” might as well be made up of cows that once stared at a cathode ray tube.
[ I certainly encourage interested parties to do their own verification of what I’m reporting. The overall pattern is sufficiently obvious without the need for me constraining the parameters of your survey. ]

Reply to  LTCjRet
April 21, 2016 3:40 pm

Nice analysis. Kudos. Should have thought of it myself.
If I decide to go forward with book #4, provisionally ‘a brief history of the climate war’ in homage to Steven Hawking, will if possible replicate your result and credit your original contribution. Now bookmarked. Makes a very important point about ‘climate science’ and ‘wicked problems’.
Also noodling analogy to American Revolutionary War as a possible fun background theme. Ragtag rebels beat mighty Britain. BEST founder as faux Benedict Arnold. AW as Thomas Payne. SM as LaFayette. Thought noodles. Curry as Jefferson? McIntyre as polymath Ben Franklin? Scrap the whole analogy thing and just write a history? Writing project just has not yet gelled.
Would be a more interesting book as things get along a bit further. Exxon ‘scandal’, CEI, maybe a UK blackout next winter, October 2016 Arctic sea ice… So many moving parts at present. Even if ‘brief’, would be my longest book, as so much to cover. So feel no urgency to begin until inspired by some upcoming key event.

Michael Maddocks
April 21, 2016 2:27 pm

Recognised by two government agencies and a politician, sounds so scientific. The Ministry of Space, the Ministry of Earth and Party Member Jerry Brown say it is true so it is true, all else is duckspeak and crimethink.

April 21, 2016 2:28 pm

‘earlier this month, for example, scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg’s misleading op-ed in the Wall Street Journal’
This is incredibly lame. Basically ten guys tried to find something wrong with his article and couldn’t, but pretended to.
They identify not a single incorrect statement in Lomborg’s piece, while misrepresenting what he said. Lomborg did NOT imply that just because cold causes more deaths than heat mortality will decline as a result of warming; that’s a very simplistic view. What Lomborg did was linking to several papers that discussed mortality and, surprise surprise, found that it would decline with warming.
Lomborg’s piece:
‘a 2009 paper from the European Union expects that the reduction in cold deaths will definitely outweigh extra heat deaths in the 2020s. Even near the end of the century, in the 2080s, the EU study projects an increase in heat deaths of “between 60,000 and 165,000” and a decrease of cold deaths of “between 60,000 and 250,000.” In other words, the effects will probably balance each other out, but warming could save as many as 85,000 lives each year.
An academic paper published two years ago in Environmental Health Perspectives similarly shows that global warming will lead to a net reduction in deaths in both the U.K. and Australia. In England and Wales today, the authors write, statistics show that heat kills 1,500 people and cold kills 32,000. In the 2080s, they calculate that increased heat will kill an additional 3,500. But they find that cold deaths will drop by 10,000. In Australia the projections suggest 700 more heat deaths but 1,600 fewer cold deaths.
Globally, one estimate of the health effects of climate change, published in 2006 by Ecological Economics, shows 400,000 more respiratory deaths (mostly from heat) by midcentury, but 1.8 million fewer cardiovascular deaths (mostly from cold).’

Reply to  Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
April 21, 2016 4:21 pm

Agree. Lame. How one knows warmunists are losing.

April 21, 2016 2:41 pm

“Leading climate minds”
God help us.

April 21, 2016 3:00 pm

So, just more of the same. ! And its been working so well for them.. 😉
Maybe if they actually had a case they could debate openly, without the whole corrupt totalitarian mess collapsing, they wouldn’t need to block all contrary ideas.

michael hart
April 21, 2016 4:21 pm

Slightly boring O/T, but I really do appreciate the effort made to acknowledge things like: “Note: within 5 minutes of publication, this post was edited to correct a redundant word and a missing word, along with a formatting error.”
No one is perfect, but you get brownie-points for quickly and honestly making and acknowledging corrections. It will also encourage readers to correct mistakes and helps keep people on their toes.

April 21, 2016 4:39 pm

Why would anyone want to prevent debate?

Reply to  roaldjlarsen
April 21, 2016 8:30 pm

because if reason prevails, they lose, duh.
confronting you with a wall of stupid ensures that reason can not prevail.
if you are a human bean, you understand that as a declaration of war because it means only force is left.
does that help you understand wtf is going on?

Reply to  gnomish
April 22, 2016 6:55 am

My question was purely rhetorical ..

Michael Jankowski
April 21, 2016 4:40 pm

Oreskes is a “leading climate mind?” Her contribution is a compilation of googling.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
April 21, 2016 6:05 pm

“Googling Stuff” is what passes for having actual knowledge these days in too many quarters. Mimicry of competence is the new normal, and it has to be accompanied by bluster, condescension and aggression in order to mask the cargo cultism and deflect any attempted bubble-piercing.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  PiperPaul
April 21, 2016 6:30 pm

You wish it was that deep!. Usually, the Wikipedia article is the first or second item in the Google list. Why read down any further… /s

Reply to  PiperPaul
April 21, 2016 7:12 pm

This article is maybe a bit OT, but then again, maybe not…

April 21, 2016 7:00 pm

The ‘science’ of ‘likes’?

Grey Lensman
April 21, 2016 8:40 pm

Gulf of Mexico, dead. Gulf stream stopped. Millions livelihoods destroyed.Yet today?

Richard of NZ
April 21, 2016 9:01 pm

Are they going to look back at the IPCC Assessment reports and rate them for accuracy (the WG1 parts anyway)? Each new version contradicts the previous one to a greater or even greater degree, but each was taken as evidence that we must all die by UN decree.
I would suggest that these works of fantasy be rated zero stars and any reporter that utilised these reports to scare the populace be set to work, at peasant rates, carting sun beams and gentle zephyrs to those who do not have them.

David Cage
April 21, 2016 11:33 pm

Stand with science. Demand external verification of climate studies and until it is done bracket it with homoeopathy.
Global warming and no snow were predicted and we are nearly at the hundred months to uncontrolled warming.
Science generally is discredited by these charlatans.

Eugene WR Gallun
April 21, 2016 11:36 pm

“Recognized by….. Gov. Jerry Brown….. ”
Recognized by Gov. Moonbeam!!! You can’t make this stuff up.
Eugene WR Gallun

Jake Rock
April 21, 2016 11:38 pm

I took a look at the Climate Feedback website. They claim to have a group of scientists (and they have an impressive-looking list of academics) to rate news articles on a scale of minus 2 (Very low cred) up to plus 2 (Very high cred). For example they rate Bjorn Lomborg’s recent editorial in the WSJ minus 1.3. Lomborg was criticizing the Obama administration report that said more heat will kill more people.
In a nutshell, Lomberg’s logic is simple. Cold kills about 14 times as many people as heat. Therefore if we have more heat fewer people will die. That simple logic is hard to refute, but these great scholars give it a go. As an example, one “scholar” writes:
“Lomborg is using scientific ‘language’ to suggest that climate change will have insignificant health impacts; this goes against a vast body of evidence. The notion that benefits from warmer winters could be more important than risks from hotter summers in terms of human health is plain wrong.”
OUCH!! Quit your job Bjorn, because you are just PLAIN WRONG! This website gives us the benefit of the thoughts of great scholars like this.

Johann Wundersamer
April 22, 2016 1:23 am

Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown among others, Climate Feedback is already improving journalistic standards by flagging misreported climate science in mainstream outlets;
earlier this month, for example, scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg’s misleading op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
2. Bjorn Lomborg’s op-ed did it into the Wall Street Journal.
1. That kind of censurism will mainly create that ‘save space’ the weaker students of green believes long for.
3. You can’t fool everyone for all time.

April 22, 2016 6:26 am

Why do skeptics not do the same thing? Why is there no push by skeptics to raise funds via the internet (proving oil companies are not the source of income) and get the real story out? It seems somehow skeptics either don’t understand or don’t want to participate in these activities. Yet that is what society has become—crowd-sourcing and twitter feeds. It’s a tough way to present science, yes, but it’s the way it needs to be done.

April 22, 2016 8:08 am

For Totalitarians: Means=Ends=Thought Control=Totalitarians vs Freedom
Simple Scientific Counter-Offensive, Offensive: “Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its 100% Prediction Failure. Therefore, its Proponents must start by providing just one of its allegedly Correct Predictions. They can’t.”
Divert Climate Hoaxters into having to defend their “science”. It needs funding to spread the above and depends upon how many people don’t understand much of anything – a basic fact of life. But I use this a lot on Twitter against random Believers, alleged “scientists”, Green Peace, Climate Hour, POTUS, etc.The result is almost always immediate silence, or a tweet later. “Never go off-message”, unless the Target is too easy to defeat with another simple fact.
But it also might be effective to publicize Pachauri’s multi-count indictment on sex-abuse charges. I’ll probably use it.

April 22, 2016 10:55 am

Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown
So… Forget The UN wanting its own (free of democratic control) source of funding and forget ‘NASA’ actually being the (tiny) Goddard institute ‘off shoot’ … Jerry Brown?
Desperate times call for desperate PR measures I suppose.
scientists took apart Bjorn Lomborg’s misleading […]
Eat yer young. Idiots – You just took an individual that believed fully in ‘the cause’ and managed to turn him into a ‘denier’ as he came to recognise that ‘deviants’ are simply not tolerated within this ‘new faith’. Go Team.
#StandWithScience … #weknowf&$kallaboutscience, #wedoknowallabout … #factoids.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights