tRump W.H. to create climate denier group.

[Dale Smith]

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

You keep saying that. I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

After all, policy around the world is being made on the basis of the science.

I understand US rightards have difficulty changing the record though. Senility is a terrible thing.

CNM Sez???? "You listen to me and agree to pay carbon taxes and stop driving your cars you capitalist pigs or you will be sorry!!!! AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH!"

 

[Darkwind]

So, they oppose people who are a skeptic of and have valid arguments against climate change, being given a voice.

Typical nazi nonsense.

 

[cnm]

Valid arguments? Hilarity!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, they oppose people who are a skeptic of and have valid arguments against climate change, being given a voice.

Same for flat earthers , faith healers, astrologers, and fortune tellers. Go find your own forums, freaks.

 

[SandSquid]

1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Lucky for you we also have other studies showing the same thing. Oreskes stuy in 2004, Dorans in 2009, Anderegg in 2010, Cook in 2013, Stenhouse in 2014, Carlton in 2015. All were based on the question of humans being the primary cause of global warming currently.

And all are between 93 and 99%. In fact some like Cook broke out the responders. Cook for example showed that when we go from Scientific consensus vs. expert consensus, the most experience, closely related field to climatology and higher the education the higher the consensus. Also that in countries where human cause Climate Change is not a politically debated topic, that scientific consensus is 99% plus.

Now when we go to peer reviewed studies and papers on global warming we have 97% of them written between 1991 and 2016 reaching the position that humans are causing global warming. This was a peer reviewed study (12000 scientists reviewed this), and each paper's authors were contacted to ensure their belief was humans are the cause of global warming was their end belief.

Then we had the Benny Peiser scandal. Naomi Oreskes had done a 10 year study on peer reviewed papers, and found NOT ONE paper rejected the position that global warming was caused by humans. Benny Peiser contradicted that with his own paper purportedly proving that initial study was wrong. His report brought this "debate" back to the mainstream when he said "only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'." Well he was forced with facts and had to issue his retraction, saying "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

In fact he went on to say he retracted 97% of his statement (so 97% + 1% is.... the 98% consensus).

With this great work of lying and using false information to try and sway the public away from science, he was given the position as the head of the top anti-human global warming lobby group in the UK. Because if you can't get a real scientist, get one who makes up the lies really loudly.

Speaking of that consensus, 12 federal agencies under the Trump administration released their report based on input from thousands of the best scientists in America. And Climate change is affected by humans and " threatens the health and well-being of the American people"

This report was reviewed and accepted as well by the National Academy of Sciences,

And the year before we had the release of the "Climate Science Special Report" a purely scientific document from the top scientists of 13 federal agencies also reviewed by the NAS.

That Trump administration report said "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. "

and

"The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally."


The fact is, Trump can't just stop science in the government. He can't just fire all the scientists and replace them with idiots who will say "global warming is fake".

So he is forced to keep reporting to the US that Global warming is real, and is caused by humans releasing greenhouse gasses.

But he can round up that a small group with 14 different other theories which mostly don't work together, and put out a little report really loudly... as long as he just rejects the rest of the United States and his federal governments while doing so.

We will see if this new report has the thousands of experts in those fields, or if that 98% or so is true and he isn't able to find that many to take part. We will see if it can pass any peer review of scientists, or if that 98% are opposing it.

we will see if the requirements stay for this new one of meeting in public, subject to public records requests and them being forced to include a representative membership.

 

[Crepitus]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

No Victory for the Vermin and Vegetation

You mean they won't be subject to the blinding oversight of sterile nerds pushing their power-hungry fantasies that make them feel better about their inferiority to creative scientists? Have you hugged your tree today?

You are clearly not qualified to have an opinion on anything having to do with science.

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

Climate denier says "don't confuse me with the facts!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

No Victory for the Vermin and Vegetation

You mean they won't be subject to the blinding oversight of sterile nerds pushing their power-hungry fantasies that make them feel better about their inferiority to creative scientists? Have you hugged your tree today?

You are clearly not qualified to have an opinion on anything having to do with science.

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

Climate denier says "don't confuse me with the facts!"

Exactly!!!

That's why the Kyoto Treaty received so many votes in the Senate!!!

Because...…..facts.

 

[Crepitus]

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

No Victory for the Vermin and Vegetation

You mean they won't be subject to the blinding oversight of sterile nerds pushing their power-hungry fantasies that make them feel better about their inferiority to creative scientists? Have you hugged your tree today?

You are clearly not qualified to have an opinion on anything having to do with science.

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

Climate denier says "don't confuse me with the facts!"

Exactly!!!

That's why the Kyoto Treaty received so many votes in the Senate!!!

Because...…..facts.

Yes, the republican senate didn't use any.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No Victory for the Vermin and Vegetation

You mean they won't be subject to the blinding oversight of sterile nerds pushing their power-hungry fantasies that make them feel better about their inferiority to creative scientists? Have you hugged your tree today?

You are clearly not qualified to have an opinion on anything having to do with science.

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

Climate denier says "don't confuse me with the facts!"

Exactly!!!

That's why the Kyoto Treaty received so many votes in the Senate!!!

Because...…..facts.

Yes, the republican senate didn't use any.

View attachment 249095

How many Dem votes did Kyoto receive?

 

[skookerasbil]

So, they oppose people who are a skeptic of and have valid arguments against climate change, being given a voice.

Same for flat earthers , faith healers, astrologers, and fortune tellers. Go find your own forums, freaks.

What incentive is there for skeptics to leave this forum? I'm not getting it? Skeptics routinely win in here as evidenced by the fact that AGW theory has had very little impact in the real world, outside the realm of science. 20 years of bomb throwing by the AGW zombies has resulted in laughably low levels of renewable energy in this country. But skeptics should find another forum?

 

[Crepitus]

You are clearly not qualified to have an opinion on anything having to do with science.

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

Climate denier says "don't confuse me with the facts!"

Exactly!!!

That's why the Kyoto Treaty received so many votes in the Senate!!!

Because...…..facts.

Yes, the republican senate didn't use any.

View attachment 249095

How many Dem votes did Kyoto receive?

Senate was republican controlled so it makes no difference.

 

[SandSquid]

So, they oppose people who are a skeptic of and have valid arguments against climate change, being given a voice.

Typical nazi nonsense.

Actually it is a requirement for the Trump administrations Climate Science Report and the NCA report to meet in public, subject to public records requests and them being forced to include a representative membership.

All these including the requirement for a representative voice have been removed. This is literally the one excluding.

I agree... It's the typical Nazi nonsense where if you don't like what the representative group is, you just create your own propoganda study to come up with your own belief system instead.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Lucky for you we also have other studies showing the same thing. Oreskes stuy in 2004, Dorans in 2009, Anderegg in 2010, Cook in 2013, Stenhouse in 2014, Carlton in 2015. All were based on the question of humans being the primary cause of global warming currently.

And all are between 93 and 99%. In fact some like Cook broke out the responders. Cook for example showed that when we go from Scientific consensus vs. expert consensus, the most experience, closely related field to climatology and higher the education the higher the consensus. Also that in countries where human cause Climate Change is not a politically debated topic, that scientific consensus is 99% plus.

Now when we go to peer reviewed studies and papers on global warming we have 97% of them written between 1991 and 2016 reaching the position that humans are causing global warming. This was a peer reviewed study (12000 scientists reviewed this), and each paper's authors were contacted to ensure their belief was humans are the cause of global warming was their end belief.

Then we had the Benny Peiser scandal. Naomi Oreskes had done a 10 year study on peer reviewed papers, and found NOT ONE paper rejected the position that global warming was caused by humans. Benny Peiser contradicted that with his own paper purportedly proving that initial study was wrong. His report brought this "debate" back to the mainstream when he said "only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'." Well he was forced with facts and had to issue his retraction, saying "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

In fact he went on to say he retracted 97% of his statement (so 97% + 1% is.... the 98% consensus).

With this great work of lying and using false information to try and sway the public away from science, he was given the position as the head of the top anti-human global warming lobby group in the UK. Because if you can't get a real scientist, get one who makes up the lies really loudly.

Speaking of that consensus, 12 federal agencies under the Trump administration released their report based on input from thousands of the best scientists in America. And Climate change is affected by humans and " threatens the health and well-being of the American people"

This report was reviewed and accepted as well by the National Academy of Sciences,

And the year before we had the release of the "Climate Science Special Report" a purely scientific document from the top scientists of 13 federal agencies also reviewed by the NAS.

That Trump administration report said "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. "

and

"The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally."


The fact is, Trump can't just stop science in the government. He can't just fire all the scientists and replace them with idiots who will say "global warming is fake".

So he is forced to keep reporting to the US that Global warming is real, and is caused by humans releasing greenhouse gasses.

But he can round up that a small group with 14 different other theories which mostly don't work together, and put out a little report really loudly... as long as he just rejects the rest of the United States and his federal governments while doing so.

We will see if this new report has the thousands of experts in those fields, or if that 98% or so is true and he isn't able to find that many to take part. We will see if it can pass any peer review of scientists, or if that 98% are opposing it.

we will see if the requirements stay for this new one of meeting in public, subject to public records requests and them being forced to include a representative membership.

"Now when we go to peer reviewed studies and papers on global warming we have 97% of them written between 1991 and 2016 reaching the position that humans are causing global warming. This was a peer reviewed study (12000 scientists reviewed this), and each paper's authors were contacted to ensure their belief was humans are the cause of global warming was their end belief. "


Peer reviewed?????


I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.


"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’
Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.

Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.

The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.

You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”

All manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for peer review. Generally, reviews from two independent referees are required.

An announcement from SAGE published July 8 explained what happened, albeit somewhat opaquely.

In 2013, the editor of JVC, Ali H. Nayfeh, became aware of people using “fabricated identities” to manipulate an online system called SAGE Track by which scholars review the work of other scholars prior to publication.

Attention focused on a researcher named Peter Chen of the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan and “possibly other authors at this institution.”

After a 14-month investigation, JVC determined the ring involved “aliases” and fake e-mail addresses of reviewers — up to 130 of them — in an apparently successful effort to get friendly reviews of submissions and as many articles published as possible by Chen and his friends. “On at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he created,” according to the SAGE announcement.

The statement does not explain how something like this happens. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...etracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/



I can provide lots more of same, simply indicating that scientists are no different than anyone else, and know exactly how to get grants and build careers.



Wise up, you dope.

 

[SandSquid]

Lol... Yes occasionally people break the law.

Just because a Trump supporter killed a man at his nazi rally, does that now mean all Trump supporters are just murdering nazi's?

Of course not. Not even you are dumb enough to buy that all Trump supporters are Nazis who murder.

But you want to make that jump here with what is called a fallacy of composition.

I'm sure you have no clue about that. Remember the other day when you actually talked yourself into debunking your entire premise... that was embarrassing for you.

Please, show me your statistical breakdown based on evidence of that occassion where the law was broken of peer reviewing of 12,000 scientists, 2,000 papers, across 132 countries all being involved now. I'd LOVE to see you use facts rather than logical fallacies in your debates for ONCE in your life.

You are walking talking spare parts hon.

 

[SandSquid]

Lol... Yes occasionally people break the law.

Just because a Trump supporter killed a man at his nazi rally, does that now mean all Trump supporters are just murdering nazi's?

Of course not. Not even you are dumb enough to buy that all Trump supporters are Nazis who murder.

But you want to make that jump here with what is called a fallacy of composition.

I'm sure you have no clue about that. Remember the other day when you actually talked yourself into debunking your entire premise... that was embarrassing for you.

Please, show me your statistical breakdown based on evidence of that occassion where the law was broken of peer reviewing of 12,000 scientists, 2,000 papers, across 132 countries all being involved now. I'd LOVE to see you use facts rather than logical fallacies in your debates for ONCE in your life.

You are walking talking spare parts hon.

And anyways, you've already gotten walked into debunking yourself in a past one. You have shown your attempt to use logical fallacies again here. Don't worry about a response, that's enough strikes for you. You seem incapable of fact based reasoning which adds nothing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lol... Yes occasionally people break the law.

Just because a Trump supporter killed a man at his nazi rally, does that now mean all Trump supporters are just murdering nazi's?

Of course not. Not even you are dumb enough to buy that all Trump supporters are Nazis who murder.

But you want to make that jump here with what is called a fallacy of composition.

I'm sure you have no clue about that. Remember the other day when you actually talked yourself into debunking your entire premise... that was embarrassing for you.

Please, show me your statistical breakdown based on evidence of that occassion where the law was broken of peer reviewing of 12,000 scientists, 2,000 papers, across 132 countries all being involved now. I'd LOVE to see you use facts rather than logical fallacies in your debates for ONCE in your life.

You are walking talking spare parts hon.

You must have a brain the size of a Lithium battery.





We all know the economic benefits that accrue from signing onto the global warming scam.....show me the benefits that accrue to those 31,000 who simply chose to tell the truth.

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.”

What's their motive, you dunce?

Try not to be so stupid.....try.....hard.

 

[skookerasbil]

Someone in here was talking about the "flat earthers" yesterday?

Top story on DRUDGE right now............

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/07/new-all-time-record-low-temperature-in-illinois/

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lol.....this is an internet message board last I checked. Anyway, outside of internet message boards and college campuses, nobody is caring about the science.

Climate denier says "don't confuse me with the facts!"

Exactly!!!

That's why the Kyoto Treaty received so many votes in the Senate!!!

Because...…..facts.

Yes, the republican senate didn't use any.

View attachment 249095

How many Dem votes did Kyoto receive?

Senate was republican controlled so it makes no difference.

Senate was republican controlled so it makes no difference.

So Dems could have voted to damage our economy without worrying it would pass.

So how many Dem votes did it get? 40? 30? Couple of dozen, at least?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

They were going to create a formal advisory committee but they would have been subject to pesky things like public oversight, representative membership, FOA requests, you know, all the things we use to keep government honest. Which should tell you they aren't planning on being honest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html

yet you applauded when Obamas EPA tried to fastrack bills with out going through proper peer review.


**** you



.