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.
Why would anyone want to prevent debate?
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?
My question was purely rhetorical ..
Oreskes is a “leading climate mind?” Her contribution is a compilation of googling.
“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.
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
This article is maybe a bit OT, but then again, maybe not…
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
The ‘science’ of ‘likes’?
Gulf of Mexico, dead. Gulf stream stopped. Millions livelihoods destroyed.Yet today?
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.
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.
“Recognized by….. Gov. Jerry Brown….. ”
Recognized by Gov. Moonbeam!!! You can’t make this stuff up.
Eugene WR Gallun
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.
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.
So
1. That kind of censurism will mainly create that ‘save space’ the weaker students of green believes long for.
Because
3. You can’t fool everyone for all time.
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.
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.
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.