Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The original video from the WEF appears to have been deleted (gee, I wonder why) but here's a mirrored copy of it for you...
This video is not a production of the WEF and is not accurate.
Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030
A video repeating misinformation about the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been shared widely on Facebook.www.reuters.com
She's telling us to listen to the scientists. So are a lot of other people. That isn't bad advice.
Fact-checking!This video is not a production of the WEF and is not accurate.
Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030
A video repeating misinformation about the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been shared widely on Facebook.
nypost.com
Try this. Read what the scientists wrote about global warming. And stop freaking out about one young girl whose worried about our future.
The Davos Conference is not a climate conference.Nearly 1,500 private jets to land at climate change-focused Davos summit
As the number of extremely wealthy people worldwide has grown, so too has the market for private flights. Despite global warming being one of the major issues discussed at Davos every year, some 1,…
One thousand five hundred private jets flown by Globalist elites to a conference so they can all get together and come up with a plan to convince the rest of us about all sacrifices we need to make for them.
I'm reminded of the way the democrat party tried to create their own ministry of truth so they could control information even further.Fact-checking!
Those with bottomless pockets manipulate what is true or false.
How Fact Checking Is Controlled and Faked
In this day and age, fact-checking is nothing but bullshit. To control a narrative and steer the agenda.
Here is an example.
Fact check: No evidence Bill Gates said ‘at least 3 billion people need to die’
No "evidence" right? Wrong, they didn't look hard enough.
Bill Gates Admits He Wants To Lower The Population Using Vaccines and Abortion
If you skip to the 8:22 min mark, you'll hear what the nutter says.
Stop using fact-checking, they're full of bullshit. Hear it straight from
the horse's mouth.
Fact-checking!
...These scientists about 35,000 of them?
From Oregon Petition - WikipediaGlobal Warming Petition Project
31,487 signatories including 9,029 with PHD
LINK
======
Those 35,000 scientists.......
You are pathetic as usual.
Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[30]
In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[31][32]
Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming.[36]
Not one single right winger here has expressed any disapproval of the reams of misinformation coming from their side of the argument.I'm reminded of the way the democrat party tried to create their own ministry of truth so they could control information even further.
Not one single leftist here saw anything wrong with that.
That you posit this as some sort of simplistic battle between left wing and right only indicates the degree to which you are a true believer.Not one single right winger here has expressed any disapproval of the reams of misinformation coming from their side of the argument.
Why would they, when they have the fake POTUS and VP both dumb as dogshit and no clue with a broken moral and ethical compass?I'm reminded of the way the democrat party tried to create their own ministry of truth so they could control information even further.
Not one single leftist here saw anything wrong with that.
...
From Oregon Petition - Wikipedia
Though the group claims more than thirty-thousand signatories across various scientific fields, the authenticity and methods of the petitioners as well as the signatories' credentials have been questioned, and the project has been characterized as a disinformation campaign engaged in climate change denial.
Credentials and authenticity
The credentials, verification process, and authenticity of the signatories have been questioned.
Jeff Jacoby promoted the Oregon Institute petition as delegates convened for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1998. Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, said event organizers "take it for granted" that global warming is real when scientists do not agree "that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful" or "that human activity leads to global warming in the first place."[22] George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[23] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[24] Spurious names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[25] the movie Star Wars,[24] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[26] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[25] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[27] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[28] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying that, although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant".[29]
In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."
Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:
NAS incident
A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[33] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[34] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[34]
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[35] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[35]
Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[34] A 2006 article in the magazine Vanity Fair stated:
Credentials and authenticity
The credentials, verification process, and authenticity of the signatories have been questioned.
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
Are there any peer-reviewed studies that show that an electric vehicle has a smaller carbon footprint than an internal combustion engine?I do think poorly of him for that Corvette, but I doubt he puts many miles on it these days. I saw him enjoying one of Ford's first electric F-150s though. And I suspect that the global warming legislation he signed makes his Vette's emissions a complete nothing burger.
And the entire analagous process for producing an ICE vehicle.Are there any peer-reviewed studies that show that an electric vehicle has a smaller carbon footprint than an internal combustion engine?
The study would need to take in the entire carbon footprint of the EV, from the mining of the lithium, nickel, and cobalt for the batteries, to the fossil fuels used to generate the electrity, to the gasoline used by roadside assistance vehicles for the inevitable emergency recharges.
Do the studies you've found show the 3rd world children of African nations digging in cobalt pits as young as 5, to obtain a measly amount?And the entire analagous process for producing an ICE vehicle.
How's this: Comparative life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a mid-size BEV and ICE vehicle – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
or this: Life-cycle GHG emissions of an EV compared to an ICEV
or this: Light-duty EVs have 64% lower life-cycle emissions than ICE vehicles – Ford study
or this: Fact check: Lifetime carbon emissions lower for electric vehicles than gas-powered cars
or you could even do your own search.
Crick is ignoring THOUSANDS of published papers..... he decided to make a strawman attack on the Petition Project then run away.....
=====
Additional evidence that 100% consensus claims are howling nonsense and Reproducible papers is what drives research ahead.
All the below is from a single blog No Tricks Zone
100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate
LINK
===
135+ Papers: Low Sensitivity
LINK
===
600 Non Warming Graphs (1)
LINK
600 Non Warming Graphs (2)
LINK
600 Non Warming Graphs (3)
LINK
===
2m Higher Holocene Sea Levels
LINK
===
CO2 Greens the Earth
LINK
========
Then we have published Skeptic papers by the bushel!
Skeptic Papers 2021 (1) LINK
Skeptic Papers 2021 (2) LINK
Skeptic Papers 2020 (1) LINK
Skeptic Papers 2020 (2) LINK
Many more back to 2014 is available......
======
Popular Technology
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
LINK
===
1,107 signatories many are scientists
World Climate Declaration LINK
There is no climate emergency Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted. The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
LINK
