Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Here is some debunking of certain facts attributed to Freemasons: the letter from Albert Pike to Mazzini is a fake, where Pike supposedly describes Fremansonry plan to seize control of the whole world by three world wars and also the plan to destroy Catholics.

https://esotericagnosticismandfreem...pikes-fake-three-world-wars-letter-the-proof/

It comes up that the authors of this fake are rather Catholics themselves who want instead to stop Freemasons or just find a scapegoat for their own wrongdoing:

"Here is a TRUE story of international intrigue, romances, corruption, graft, and political assassinations, the like of which has never been written before. It is the story of how different groups or atheistic-materialistic men have played in an international chess tournament to decide which group would win ultimate control of the wealth, natural resources, and man-power of the entire world. It is explained how the game has reached the final stage. The lnternational Communists, and the International Capitalists, (both of whom have totalitarian ambitions) have temporarily joined hands to defeat Christian-democracy. The cover design shows that all moves made by the International Conspirators are directed by Satan and while the situation is decidedly serious it is definitely not hopeless. The solution is to end the game the International Conspirators have been playing right now before one or another totalitarian-minded group impose their ideas on the rest of mankind."

William Guy Carr introduction of his book, Pawns in the Game


Christian democracy?
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
I am afraid we are on the wrong track about Freemasonry. Up to now I was a supporter of the idea of conspiracy by Freemasons, but I am in the process of revisioning all my conspiracy ideas -which I never checked- and Freemasonry definitely looks as a victim like Jews are of false conspiracy ideas against them.

Easy to find a reason: their secrecy and their ideas of freedom, equality and justice must have been posing a threat to the powers that be. Not surprise that Catholics have always opposed them, but not only them, the list of repression against them is looooong, very looooong, as much as for the Jews:
My experience has been the opposite. My grandfather, an Anglican minister, was invited to join the Freemasons. He did so but left them because he found them to be a mere drinking society. This is how they cover their inner secrets from newbies.

Freemasonry was invented in Britain in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, metastasizing across Europe and America almost immediately. Its malignancy is seen in its popularity in Israel today. Its preaching of equality and justice applies only to its members. Read Joe here on J. D. Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye".
Among the many, Russia persecuted Freemasonry during the communist era, so it is hardly true what conspiracists say that Freemasons are the ones behind the communist revolution.
The communists came to persecute them because they at long last realized the double game the Freemasons were playing. Freemasons provided the link between Protestant Christians and Jews from the Reformation, and were quite happy to support revolution in Russia in 1917 in order to remove Russia from gaining any of the spoils post-WW1 - since the USA had now joined the fight against Germany. (Read Macgregor & Docherty, Prolonging the Agony for the historical correction of the false narrative of the West).

In his autobiography Trotsky himself admits to studying Freemasonry before joining the Marxists. One did not just study Freemasonry then - one had to be invited and study the literature. Trot's admission merely proves his manipulative guilt here.

As for Nick Cohen,
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17272611

"It's nothing new, says Observer newspaper columnist Nick Cohen."

"Ever since the 1790s Masons have been "whipping boys" for global conspiracy theorists, he argues, adding that after the French revolution, Catholic reactionaries were looking for a scapegoat and the Jews - the usual target - were too downtrodden to be blamed.

"It was the Freemasons' turn and the narrative of a secret society plotting in the shadows has never gone away, says Cohen. "You can draw a straight line from the 1790s onwards to the Nazis, Franco, Stalin right up to modern Islamists like Hamas." "
he is about as vicious and hypocritical a Zionist as you could ever meet. Just read Cohen's books such as "What's Left" (or the other book with the top-hatted skull) to see what a corrupt BLP operative he is (or was). Your quoted words from him are just his cover narrative to deceive and confuse.

As for Franco, for me growing up in an anti-Catholic background, he was a remote but significant bugbear, a Nazi-era relic. However when I read Chomsky's "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" and Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" I came to realize, contra the two propagandizing authors, that Franco was not so bad after all (this before ever knowing of Joe Atwill and his recent podcasts on Franco). Rather, Chomsky and Orwell reveal their own perversions here - always championing the ignorant and stupid and their bloody and confused attacks on the system without realizing that they have NO alternative system to replace it, only moralizing, hypocrisy, anarchism and crypto-Protestantism, all of which soon fall under the control of Western financiers.
As far as their interest in Egyptians symbols is concerned I read that when Freemasonry underwent its transformation in 1700s from an operative mason brotherhood to a speculative one, there were people who were not masons who were attracted to join because they thought they would find esoteric teachings among them, spiritual teachings, and they found very little. So my guess is that these intellectuals searched later for spiritual mysteries elsewhere and the Egyptians certainly offered an intriguing field.
The highlighted words reveal the fundamental corruptive influence of the masons. I have not previously read those words - and would be interested where you found them - but they certainly dovetail with Freemason teaching trying to win over the mystically-inclined and muddled.

Before the 1700s, I must admit that the Freemasons did do some good by championing Galileo, whose ideas overthrew the static Aristotelianism of the Church. However, the Freemasons then adopted Newton in the interim - as he too was besotted with alchemy and Biblical prophecy. Nowadays of course they champion Einstein's BS - about as speculative as you can get, as they ONLY wish to befuddle the masses in order to have them genocided or reduced to a passive underclass as Joe reveals from Huxley's Brave New World.

The Freemasons are a Western product of course, with roots in the Knights Templars and ancient Egypt, but have had influence in China e.g. Sun Yat Sen. Today they mainly exist in the form of daughter secret societies - also criminal since what are the secrets that they always need to hide???
https://www.gaia.com/article/ancient-egypt-and-freemasonry

But ancient Egypt is not their only area of interest, certainly ancient Greece and Roman world before the Church dominion, that is classical time, too.

I used to have a friend whose lodge was doing just that: searching for forgotten esoteric teachings in the Western world (as opposed to the trend to look for Eastern teachings).
Like Madam Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley I suppose. Anyone who sups from their bowl needs a very long spoon.:D:p:D

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
That Catholics invented their own fake literature to debunk Freemasonry is no surprise.
Here is some debunking of certain facts attributed to Freemasons: the letter from Albert Pike to Mazzini is a fake, where Pike supposedly describes Fremansonry plan to seize control of the whole world by three world wars and also the plan to destroy Catholics.

https://esotericagnosticismandfreem...pikes-fake-three-world-wars-letter-the-proof/

It comes up that the authors of this fake are rather Catholics themselves who want instead to stop Freemasons or just find a scapegoat for their own wrongdoing:

"Here is a TRUE story of international intrigue, romances, corruption, graft, and political assassinations, the like of which has never been written before. It is the story of how different groups or atheistic-materialistic men have played in an international chess tournament to decide which group would win ultimate control of the wealth, natural resources, and man-power of the entire world. It is explained how the game has reached the final stage. The lnternational Communists, and the International Capitalists, (both of whom have totalitarian ambitions) have temporarily joined hands to defeat Christian-democracy. The cover design shows that all moves made by the International Conspirators are directed by Satan and while the situation is decidedly serious it is definitely not hopeless. The solution is to end the game the International Conspirators have been playing right now before one or another totalitarian-minded group impose their ideas on the rest of mankind."

William Guy Carr introduction of his book, Pawns in the Game


Christian democracy?
It does not mean that Freemasonry is justifiable thereby. By "Christian democracy" is meant "Catholic democracy" I suppose.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Well I have to admit, Richard, that Al Gore...
The IPCC 'science' is RANK 'geopolitical' science, of the order which you claim for Einsteinian science, or worse. I did not hear these speakers promote any such "crimes against the environment!!!!!!!", so you are conflating different matters, as intended, being caught up in the Group Think hysteria.

I, at least, have a 'serious' proposal to outlaw volcanoes, comets, asteroids, solar variations, supernovas, earthquakes, quicksand, and locusts. This, instead of executing scientific people who do not advocate for "crimes against the environment!!!!!!!" while properly engaging in the Scientific Debate about a geopolitical agenda driven issue, using their American First Amendment rights -- until they soon will disappear, during and after the Civil War which the current American Trojan Whore president is agitating for.

Since Al Gore is the poster boy for this geo-political cause, perhaps it might do to examine his and his late father's connection to the Occidental Petroleum, and the typical, behind the scenes linkages of such elites across the geo-political divide, with the likes of Armand Hammer, Oxy's late founder, long-term capitalist friend of the USSR. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=al+gore+occidental+petroleum&t=ffsb&atb=v173-1&ia=web

In any case, in the aggregate at least, the polar bears are happy with Global Warming, no matter who causes it.
...certainly has his own moneymaking agenda, but at least he has conceded that Human Induced Global Warming (HIGW) is a if not the major crisis facing humanity in the near future. (Good luck outlawing the volcanoes and meteors!!!)

I don't think the polar bears appreciate global warming though - the ice remains thin so they cannot venture on it for long to hunt for seals. Then they are forced to swim to refuge islands, rather than walk as they used to!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
(Good luck outlawing the volcanoes and meteors!!!)
So you're saying I have a chance with the supernovas, comets, solar variations (which includes changing the orbit of the Earth), earthquakes, quicksand, and locusts? You mean we agree on this?

I don't think the polar bears appreciate ...
This does not sound very definitive. The video addressed your threadbear concern, but you must realize that nothing about Nature is fair, or about such things as 'appreciation' of advanced human constructions. Just to be clear, I was being facetious in using the term 'happy' in reference to polar bears being 'happy' about Global Warming, but not that animals and plants can't be happy or sad, as clearly Science and Abrahamic Religion was/is long chauvinistic that animals and plants are not capable of such 'human' emotions.

But while I merely propose to change the Laws of Nature, you desire to execute humans and, by logical implication you desire to kill Nature in order to save it ... and your wildflowers (who are only patiently waiting for the Sun to allow them some timely rain). In order for you (and I) to happily eat, 'somebody' has to kill other living things. Vegetarians are humans that wantonly do not hear terrified plants screaming to survive.

The chance to express my sarcasm aside about your flapping sensibilities regarding Consensus Science, this off-topic discussion over Freemasonry and the Church is hilarious, and simultaneously unfortunately sad in our Postflavian context, given how much others (like Saussy) and myself have expended to properly contextualize (hence my sarcasm regarding Claude's father's house having many lofty rooms) masonry and the Church. Instead I witness a debate about one front duking it out with another, Claude's Mother Church awash in such esoterica from its inception. No I am NOT talking about the Church catechism which rhetoric reflects the opposite for the unwashed masses. Yet, anyone who cares can observe the Mithraic bull in its basement.

That Catholics invented their own fake literature to debunk Freemasonry is no surprise. ... It does not mean that Freemasonry is justifiable thereby. By "Christian democracy" is meant "Catholic democracy" I suppose.
The Classical Greeks took far greater pains to achieve 'democracy' than America's Protestant 'Christian' democracy, which has indeed turned into a literal Catholic democracy. Meaning a Fake Democracy controlled by corporation corruptions and other agendas. Ironically, using such blatant corruptions as Catholic Joe Biden's (and his son), soon, the Catholic junta will turn it into an overt fascist paradise like Franco and Saint Escriva's. The first step to a revanchist return to monarchism. Surely you are doing God's Work here, Opus Dei.

The scholar Jason Reza Jorjani is also agin Democracy, but he has the honesty to admit that Plato's ideal of the Philosopher King has never been achieved. You have told us that you are now a fascist, but with Franco we are getting a more accurate picture. Yes, you can feel good because Franco wasn't the only one who gave massive support to the Nazis.

But to return to the thread, the presenters of various videos I have posted have made the following points about the practice of MMGW Consensus Science:
  • There are serious problems with the measurements
  • There are serious problems with the adjustments made to fit the measured and extrapolated data to the a priori geopolitical conclusion (supported by the Church)
  • There is a serious lack of transparency regarding access to the measurement and model fudging databases
  • There is a serious lack of good faith in authentic engagement in the Scientific Process of debate (between scientists)
  • There is a serious lack of good faith in claiming scientific consensus when none exists (as witnessed by the spurious NASA claim which you support -- by your deafening silence).
Al Gore recognizes the extreme profits to be made in exploiting the gullibility of people who are, ONCE AGAIN, panicked into the sense of an existential threat, contrived by our human shepherds. He even mocked you (and Jerry) by posting a doctored picture of a hurricane turning backwards. He fucking changed the Laws of Nature, and you don't care.

The real hurricanes in Gore's picture were indeed causing 'waves' of water. Now, if you want to tell me that light is not a wave and/or a particle, I'll listen to you. But a 'wave' of what?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
  • There are serious problems with the measurements
  • There are serious problems with the adjustments made to fit the measured and extrapolated data to the a priori geopolitical conclusion (supported by the Church)
  • There is a serious lack of transparency regarding access to the measurement and model fudging databases

What you mean, is that your various Koch-sponsored so-called "scientists" have presented Gish Gallops to this effect. None of it has seriously addressed the multiple sources of data which indisputably establish that CO2 levels have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution, and that the rise in CO2 is strongly correlated with a rise in temperature, and that the said correlation is more or less what has been predicted by climate models.

There is a serious lack of good faith in authentic engagement in the Scientific Process of debate (between scientists)

On the contrary, the debate has been engaged quite vigorously on both sides. However, this does not extend to scientific tolerance of "skeptic" sophistries in peer reviewed journals, with very few exceptions.

There is a serious lack of good faith in claiming scientific consensus when none exists (as witnessed by the spurious NASA claim which you support -- by your deafening silence).

Sheesh. Silence is not consent. Remember how annoying it was, to try to keep up with comment bombardment from Loren? Don't think you can win by the same tactics.

Where are the climate scientists with legitimate faculty positions, who deny MMGW? Where are the peer reviewed journal articles that deny MMGW? You can't find them, because they don't exist. The NASA item discussed in the video mentioned four sources on this, but there are lots more. Everybody (except the industry shills) comes to the same conclusion, because it's accurate. See the Wikipedia article for a broader survey of the literature.

But, there are plenty of paid lobbyists on the other side of the debate, including some with arguably relevant scientific backgrounds. Desmog Blog maintains a database, here.

So if you want to establish an equivalence between peer reviewed scientific literature written by specialists on the one hand, vs. industry shills and dabblers on the other hand -- then you're right, there's no consensus. And you're left to review the actual arguments on both sides, which I've been trying to do.

He even mocked you (and Jerry) by posting a doctored picture of a hurricane turning backwards.

I can't believe you're still making a Federal case out of this. So what if Al Gore's graphic artist flipped the image of the hurricane. There wasn't any scientific point being made, or any deception being perpetrated. It was just an illustration.

Of course you can make a strong case that Gore is a hypocrite, and that his proposed solutions won't accomplish anything except to line his own pockets. But it doesn't help, to put such a focus on trivialities.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
What you mean, is that your various Koch-sponsored so-called "scientists" have presented Gish Gallops to this effect. None of it has seriously addressed the multiple sources of data which indisputably establish that CO2 levels have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution, and that the rise in CO2 is strongly correlated with a rise in temperature, and that the said correlation is more or less what has been predicted by climate models.
I have no idea what a Gish Gallop is, apparently it's a good thing. But in any case, please stay with the specific arguments that are being made and don't attempt refutations that appear to be generalized talking points.

Who ever said that CO2 levels haven't risen? Actually CO2 levels have risen since agricultural rice production and deforestation began about 8,000 years ago.
Where are the climate scientists with legitimate faculty positions, who deny MMGW? Where are the peer reviewed journal articles that deny MMGW? You can't find them, because they don't exist. The NASA item discussed in the video mentioned four sources on this, but there are lots more. Everybody (except the industry shills) comes to the same conclusion, because it's accurate. See the Wikipedia article for a broader survey of the literature.
I once knew a Jerry Russell that had a low opinion of peer reviewed articles and the corrupt institutional system that engages in this type of elite sophistry.

One of the videos shows the IPCC guidance literature that expressly prohibits any scientific articles to be referenced that contradict its conclusion.
I can't believe you're still making a Federal case out of this. So what if Al Gore's graphic artist flipped the image of the hurricane. There wasn't any scientific point being made, or any deception being perpetrated. It was just an illustration.

Of course you can make a strong case that Gore is a hypocrite, and that his proposed solutions won't accomplish anything except to line his own pockets. But it doesn't help, to put such a focus on trivialities.
This is sadly funny, as the backwards hurricane was only one part of the problem with the picture. The satellite picture was doctored to alter the clouds (which are composed of H2O) in the original, and then the reverse hurricane was added in to the middle, being framed by two hurricanes on either side.
... and that the said correlation is more or less what has been predicted by climate models.
This is solipsism at its finest. The corrupt climate models, except maybe the Russian's, all show some correlation with warming, of which the measurement data is suspect, and the methodolgies employed to normalize the data are suspect. Therefore, one is justified in accepting the globalists' convenient and profitable conclusion. Well, at least no one will get killed, merely executed by such as our Australian fascist.
There wasn't any scientific point being made, or any deception being perpetrated. It was just an illustration.
Right, that's what illustrations are only good for. I'm sure that Al Gore would have conveniently preferred a llama licking a walrus'es ass, but instead he got three hurricanes, one of which was backwards. And yes, Jerry, I came closer to inventing the Internet than he did.

In any case, I'm going to stick with my physicist, the one that you helped me convert to being a MMGW denier. Maybe if you can convince him, then I'll change my mind.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following is a critique of the methodology and conclusions of Naomi Oreskes in her work forming the basis of the 'newer' claim that 97 percent of climate scientists support the political conclusions of the corrupt IPCC (as most UN organizations have proven to be). The claim is 'newer', because the prior claim was that 97 percent of all scientists supported such.

Sadly, I have felt compelled to not attribute the author for fear of what the mad scientists here might do.

The most frequently cited source for a “consensus of scientists” is a 2004 essay for the journal Science written by a socialist historian named Naomi Oreskes (Oreskes, 2004). Oreskes reported examining abstracts from 928 papers reported by the Institute for Scientific Information database published in scientific journals from 1993 and 2003, using the keywords “global climate change.” Although not a scientist, she concluded 75 percent of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported IPCC’s view that human activities were responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Oreskes’ essay appeared in a “peer-reviewed scientific journal,” as NASA reported, but the essay itself was not peer-reviewed. It was an opinion essay and the editors hadn’t bothered asking to see her database. This opinion essay became the basis of a book, Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes and Conway, 2010), and then an academic career built on claiming that global warming “deniers” are a tiny minority within the scientific community, and then even a movie based on her book released in 2015. Her 2004 claims were repeated in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and in his book with the same title (Gore, 2006).
It is now widely agreed Oreskes did not distinguish between articles that acknowledged or assumed some human impact on climate, however small, and articles that supported IPCC’s more specific claim that human emissions are responsible for more than 50 percent of the global warming observed during the past 50 years. The abstracts often are silent on the matter, and Oreskes apparently made no effort to go beyond those abstracts. Her definition of consensus also is silent on whether man-made climate change is dangerous or benign, a rather important point in the debate.
Oreskes’ literature review inexplicably overlooked hundreds of articles by prominent global warming skeptics including John Christy, Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, and Patrick Michaels. More than 1,350 such articles (including articles published after Oreskes’ study was completed) are now identified in an online bibliography (Popular Technology.net, 2014). Oreskes’ methodology was flawed by assuming a nonscientist could determine the findings of scientific research by quickly reading abstracts of published papers. Indeed, even trained climate scientists are unable to do so because abstracts routinely do not accurately reflect their articles’ findings. According to In-Uck Park et al. in research published in Nature in 2014 (Park et al., 2014), abstracts routinely overstate or exaggerate research findings and contain claims that are irrelevant to the underlying research. The authors found “a mismatch between the claims made in the abstracts, and the strength of evidence for those claims based on a neutral analysis of the data, consistent with the occurrence of herding.” They note abstracts often are loaded with “keywords” to ensure they are picked up by search engines and thus cited by other researchers.
Oreskes’ methodology is further flawed, as are all the other surveys and abstract-counting exercises discussed in this chapter, by surveying the opinions and writings of scientists and often nonscientists who may write about climate but are by no means experts on or even casually familiar with the science dealing with attribution – that is, attributing a specific climate effect (such as a temperature increase) to a specific cause (such as rising CO2 levels). Most articles simply reference or assume to be true the claims of IPCC and then go on to address a different topic, such as the effect of ambient temperature on the life-cycle of frogs, say, or correlations between temperature and outbreaks of influenza. Attribution is the issue the surveys ask about, but they ask people who have never studied the issue. The number of scientists actually knowledgeable about this aspect of the debate may be fewer than 100 in the world. Several are prominent skeptics (John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Roy Spencer, to name only four) and many others may be.
Monckton (2007) finds numerous other errors in Oreskes’ essay including her use of the search term “global climate change” instead of “climate change,” which resulted in her finding fewer than one-thirteenth of the estimated corpus of scientific papers on climate change over the stated period. Monckton also points out Oreskes never stated how many of the 928 abstracts she reviewed actually endorsed her limited definition of “consensus.”
Medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed the “consensus” and only 7 percent did so explicitly (Schulte, 2008). His study is described in more detail below.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
OMG, look what else I found. Look at how much Claude's evil Freemasons paid to prove MMGW::

The third source cited by NASA as proof of a “scientific consensus” is another paper written by a college student. William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. He claimed to find “(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers” (Anderegg et al., 2010). This college paper was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, thanks to the addition of three academics as coauthors.
This is not a survey of scientists, whether “all scientists” or specifically climate scientists. Instead, Anderegg simply counted the number of articles he found on the Internet published in academic journals by 908 scientists. This counting exercise is the same flawed methodology utilized by Oreskes, falsely assuming abstracts of papers accurately reflect their findings. Further, Anderegg did not determine how many of these authors believe global warming is harmful or that the science is sufficiently established to be the basis for public policy. Anyone who cites this study in defense of these views is mistaken.
Anderegg et al. also didn’t count as “skeptics” the scientists whose work exposes gaps in the man-made global warming theory or contradicts claims that climate change will be catastrophic. Avery (2007) identified several hundred scientists who fall into this category, even though some profess to “believe” in global warming.
Looking past the flashy “97–98%” claim, Anderegg et al. found the average skeptic has been published about half as frequently as the average alarmist (60 versus 119 articles). Most of this difference was driven by the hyper-productivity of a handful of alarmist climate scientists: The 50 most prolific alarmists were published an average of 408 times, versus only 89 times for the skeptics. The extraordinary publication rate of alarmists should raise a red flag. It is unlikely these scientists actually participated in most of the experiments or research contained in articles bearing their names.
The difference in productivity between alarmists and skeptics can be explained by several factors other than merit:
  • Publication bias – articles that “find something,” such as a statistically significant correlation that might suggest causation, are much more likely to get published than those that do not;
  • Heavy government funding of the search for one result but little or no funding for other results – the U.S. government alone paid $64 billion to climate researchers during the four years from 2010 to 2013, virtually all of it explicitly assuming or intended to find a human impact on climate and virtually nothing on the possibility of natural causes of climate change (Butos and McQuade, 2015, Table 2, p. 178);
  • Resumé padding – it is increasingly common for academic articles on climate change to have multiple and even a dozen or more authors, inflating the number of times a researcher can claim to have been published (Hotz, 2015). Adding a previously published researcher’s name to the work of more junior researchers helps ensure approval by peer reviewers (as was the case, ironically, with Anderegg et al.);
  • Differences in the age and academic status of global warming alarmists versus skeptics – climate scientists who are skeptics tend to be older and more are emeritus than their counterparts on the alarmist side; skeptics are under less pressure and often are simply less eager to publish.
So what, exactly, did Anderegg et al. discover? That a small clique of climate alarmists had their names added to hundreds of articles published in academic journals, something that probably would have been impossible or judged unethical just a decade or two ago. Anderegg et al. simply assert those “top 50” are more credible than scientists who publish less, but they make no effort to prove this and there is ample evidence they are not (Solomon, 2008). Once again, Anderegg et al. did not ask if authors believe global warming is a serious problem or if science is sufficiently established to be the basis for public policy. Anyone who cites this study as evidence of scientific support for such views is misrepresenting the paper.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I have no idea what a Gish Gallop is, apparently it's a good thing.

"Gish Gallop" is a debating technique named after the "Scientific Creationist" Duane Gish. "The Gish gallop... focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments."

Here's a one hour video showing the master at work. I confess I don't have time to watch this entire virtuoso performance.


Another great example is this "Best Flat Earth Documentary" by Eric Dubay, that was promoted here by Giles Gaffney. Six hours of rapid-fire non sequiturs. I find it very difficult to endure more than a few minutes of this.


Who ever said that CO2 levels haven't risen? Actually CO2 levels have risen since agricultural rice production and deforestation began about 8,000 years ago.

This is a typical example of the sort of half-truth that's often embedded within a Gish Gallop. Here are CO2 levels according to ice core studies and recent instrumental measurements:

585

Source: https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=138

The level now is up to ~410 ppm. More change since 2010, than during the entire period from 8,000 years ago up until 1850.

I once knew a Jerry Russell that had a low opinion of peer reviewed articles and the corrupt institutional system that engages in this type of elite sophistry.

I have a low view of corrupt institutional systems that engage in elite sophistry. Which includes industry funded scientists as well as IPCC funded scientists.

And at the same time, I have tremendous respect for the academic system, including peer review, when it works as it's supposed to.

What I keep telling you, and you haven't engaged at all, is that the IPCC and closely affiliated scientists are often criticized for understating the problem, rather than overstating it. And their preferred solutions are aimed at supporting the paradigm of infinite growth on a small planet.

Sadly, I have felt compelled to not attribute the author for fear of what the mad scientists here might do.

Sounds suspiciously like a transcript of the video from Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute. Or maybe the video was excerpted from this.

I agree that the mysterious author identifies some flaws with Oreskes and Anderegg studies. It would cost some money to carry out a proper study. But with all the billions being dedicated to the topic, you'd think someone could do better. I would be very interested in a study that looked at correlations between funding sources, and conclusions drawn.

The number of scientists actually knowledgeable about this aspect of the debate may be fewer than 100 in the world. Several are prominent skeptics (John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Roy Spencer, to name only four) and many others may be.

That strikes me as about right. Without actually stopping to count, it seems like a reasonable guess that there might be a hundred scientists who have developed a strong expertise and strong publishing record on this particular aspect of the problem. Out of all those, you can name a few who are prominent skeptics. And as prominent and knowledgeable as those few might be, they just happen to be well known industrial shills.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Sounds suspiciously like a transcript of the video from Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute. Or maybe the video was excerpted from this.
Uhm, no Claude Badley wants to execute people for disagreeing with him, because his wildflowers are waiting for some variable rainfall. He stated that here.

But, you are right to some degree, even the corrupt IPCC cannot go as far as the climate Nazis (see the next excerpt).
I agree that the mysterious author identifies some flaws with Oreskes and Anderegg studies. It would cost some money to carry out a proper study. But with all the billions being dedicated to the topic, you'd think someone could do better. I would be very interested in a study that looked at correlations between funding sources, and conclusions drawn.
See more criticism of this shit claims below. But, you can at least acknowledge the validity of the critics positions and the weakness of the fake IPCC geopolitical scientists. Yes, they are very good geopolitical scientists, just very naughty scientists.
That strikes me as about right. Without actually stopping to count, it seems like a reasonable guess that there might be a hundred scientists who have developed a strong expertise and strong publishing record on this particular aspect of the problem. Out of all those, you can name a few who are prominent skeptics. And as prominent and knowledgeable as those few might be, they just happen to be well known industrial shills.
Bull shit, this is your cargo cult bias speaking, defaming the reputations of serious people. Versus, the criminal whores that the climate Nazis have fallen in love with.
This is a typical example of the sort of half-truth that's often embedded within a Gish Gallop. Here are CO2 levels according to ice core studies and recent instrumental measurements:
So, the graph shows that I'm correct, and verifies the claim that we've already seen the brunt of predicted CO2 warming (which is not linear).

NASA’s fourth source proving a “scientific consensus” is an abstract-counting exercise by a wacky Australian blogger named John Cook. Cook makes no effort to disguise his bias: His blog, misleadingly called “Skeptical Science,” is mostly a collection of talking points for environmental activists and attacks on realists. He’s also the author of a book titled Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. When he’s not writing about global warming, he’s a professional cartoonist (PopularTechnology.net, 2012). Why does NASA consider him to be a credible source of evidence of scientific consensus?
In 2013, Cook and some of his friends persuaded Environmental Research Letters to publish their claim that a review of the abstracts of peer-reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011 found 97 percent of those that stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggested human activity is responsible for some warming (Cook et al., 2013). This exercise in abstract-counting doesn’t support the alarmist claim that climate change is both man-made and dangerous, and it doesn’t even support IPCC’s claim that a majority of global warming in the twentieth century was man-made.
This study was quickly debunked by Legates et al. (2015) in a paper published in Science & Education. Legates et al. found “just 0.03 percent endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” They found “only 41 papers – 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent – had been found to endorse the standard or quantitative hypothesis.” Scientists whose work questions the consensus, including Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Mörner, Nicola Scafetta, and Nir J. Shaviv, protested that Cook misrepresented their work (Popular Technology.net, 2013). Richard Tol, a lead author of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, said of the Cook report, “the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative” (Tol, 2013). On a blog of The Guardian, a British newspaper that had reported on the Cook report, Tol explained: “Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about ‘the literature’ but rather about the papers they happened to find. Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and Co. mistook for evidence” (Tol, 2014).
Montford (2013) produced a blistering critique of Cook et al. in a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He reveals the authors were marketing the expected results of the paper before the research itself was conducted; changed the definition of an endorsement of the global warming hypothesis mid-stream when it became apparent the abstracts they were reviewing did not support their original (IPCC-based) definition; and gave guidance to the volunteers recruited to read and score abstracts “suggest[ing] that an abstract containing the words ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’ should be taken as explicit but unquantified endorsement of the consensus. Clearly the phrase quoted could imply any level of human contribution to warming.” Montford concludes “the consensus referred to is trivial” since the paper “said nothing about global warming being dangerous” and that “the project was not a scientific investigation to determine the extent of agreement on global warming, but a public relations exercise.”
A group of Canadian retired Earth and atmospheric scientists called Friends of Science produced a report in 2014 that reviewed the four surveys and abstract-counting exercises summarized above (Friends of Science, 2014). The scientists searched the papers for the percentage of respondents or abstracts that explicitly agree with IPCC’s declaration that human activity is responsible for more than half of observed warming. They found Oreskes found only 1.2 percent agreement; Doran and Zimmerman, 3.4 percent; Anderegg et al., 66 percent; and Cook et al., 0.54 percent. They conclude, “The purpose of the 97% claim lies in the psychological sciences, not in climate science. A 97% consensus claim is merely a ‘social proof’ – a powerful psychological motivator intended to make the public comply with the herd; to not be the ‘odd man out.’ Friends of Science deconstruction of these surveys shows there is no 97% consensus on human-caused global warming as claimed in these studies. None of these studies indicate any agreement with a catastrophic view of human-caused global warming” (p. 4).

Furthermore, the following explanation by eminent physicist, Freeman Dysan, discusses, among other things, why computer modeling is shit for predictions, but rather only a good tool for gaining understanding. And he discusses that the pioneer of such climate modeling agrees.

 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Evidence of Lack of Consensus
In contrast to the studies described above, which try but fail to find a consensus in support of the claim that global warming is man-made and dangerous, many authors and surveys have found widespread disagreement or even that a majority of scientists oppose the alleged consensus. These surveys and studies generally suffer the same methodological errors as afflict the ones described above, but they suggest that even playing by the alarmists’ rules, the results demonstrate disagreement rather than consensus.
Klaus-Martin Schulte, 2008
Schulte (2008), a practicing physician, observed, “Recently, patients alarmed by the tone of media reports and political speeches on climate change have been voicing distress, for fear of the imagined consequences of anthropogenic ‘global warming.’” Concern that his patients were experiencing unnecessary stress “prompted me to review the literature available on ‘climate change and health’ via PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez)” and then to attempt to replicate Oreskes’ 2004 report.
“In the present study,” Schulte wrote, “Oreskes’ research was brought up to date by using the same search term on the same database to identify abstracts of 539 scientific papers published between 2004 and mid-February 2007.” According to Schulte, “The results show a tripling of the mean annual publication rate for papers using the search term ‘global climate change’, and, at the same time, a significant movement of scientific opinion away from the apparently unanimous consensus which Oreskes had found in the learned journals from 1993 to 2003. Remarkably, the proportion of papers explicitly or implicitly rejecting the consensus has risen from zero in the period 1993–2003 to almost 6% since 2004. Six papers reject the consensus outright.”
Schulte also found “Though Oreskes did not state how many of the papers she reviewed explicitly endorsed the consensus that human greenhouse-gas emissions are responsible for more than half of the past 50 years’ warming, only 7% of the more recent papers reviewed here were explicit in endorsing the consensus even in the strictly limited sense she had defined. The proportion of papers that now explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus has fallen from 75% to 45%.”
Schulte’s findings demonstrate that if Oreskes’ methodology were correct and her findings for the period 1993 to 2003 accurate, then scientific publications in the more recent period of 2004–2007 show a strong tendency away from the consensus Oreskes claimed to have found. We can doubt the utility of the methodology used by both Oreskes and Schulte but recognize that the same methodology applied during two time periods reveals a significant shift from consensus to open debate on the causes of climate change.


Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, 1996, 2003, 2008, 2010
Surveys by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted in 1996, 2003, 2008, and 2010 consistently found climate scientists have deep doubts about the reliability of the science underlying claims of man-made climate change (Bray and von Storch, 2007; Bray and von Storch, 2008; Bray and von Storch, 2010). This finding is seldom reported because the authors repeatedly portray their findings as supporting, as Bray wrote in 2010, “three dimensions of consensus, as it pertains to climate change science: 1. manifestation, 2. attribution, and 3. legitimation” (Bray, 2010). They do not.
One question in Bray and von Storch’s latest survey (2010) asked scientists to grade, on a scale from 1 = “very inadequate” to 7 = “very adequate,” the “data availability for climate change analysis.” On this very important question, more respondents said “very inadequate” (1 or 2) than “very adequate” (6 or 7), with most responses ranging between 3 and 5.
Bray and von Storch summarized their survey results using a series of graphs plotting responses to each question. In their latest survey, 54 graphs show responses to questions addressing scientific issues as opposed to opinions about IPCC, where journalists tend to get their information, personal identification with environmental causes, etc. About a third show more skepticism than confidence, a third show more confidence than skepticism, and a third suggest equal amounts of skepticism and confidence.
For example, more scientists said “very inadequate” (1 or 2) than “very adequate” (6 or 7) when asked “How well do atmospheric models deal with the influence of clouds?” and “How well do atmospheric models deal with precipitation?” and “How well do atmospheric models deal with atmospheric convection?” and “The ability of global climate models to model sea-level rise for the next 50 years” and “The ability of global climate models to model extreme events for the next 10 years.” These are not arcane or trivial matters in the climate debate.
Unfortunately, the Bray and von Storch surveys also show disagreement and outright skepticism about the underlying science of climate change don’t prevent most scientists from expressing their opinion that man-made global warming is occurring and is a serious problem. On those questions, the distribution skews away from uncertainty and toward confidence. Observing this contradiction in their 1996 survey, Bray and von Storch described it as “an empirical example of ‘postnormal science,’” the willingness to endorse a perceived consensus despite knowledge of contradictory scientific knowledge when the risks are perceived as being great (Bray and von Storch, 1999). Others might refer to this as cognitive dissonance, holding two contradictory opinions at the same time, or “herding,” the well-documented tendency of academics facing uncertainty to ignore research that questions a perceived consensus position in order to advance their careers (Baddeleya, 2013).
On their face, Bray and von Storch’s results should be easy to interpret. For at least a third of the questions asked, more scientists aren’t satisfied than are with the quality of data, reliability of models, or predictions about future climate conditions. For another third, there is as much skepticism as there is strong confidence. Most scientists are somewhere in the middle, somewhat convinced that man-made climate change is occurring but concerned about lack of data and other fundamental uncertainties, far from the “95%+ certainty” claimed by IPCC.
Bray and von Storch are very coy in reporting and admitting the amount of disagreement their surveys find on the basic science of global warming, suggesting they have succumbed to the very cognitive dissonance they once described. But their data clearly reveal a truth: There is no scientific consensus.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Of course, now that you've admitted that the IPCC and their geopolitical agenda driven scientists are corrupt, the following will seem like I'm rubbing it in. Nothing has changed since 2010, and it appears, that if anything, the trend is in the reverse direction for everyone except the corporate media and the cargo cult.

Even prominent “alarmists” in the climate change debate admit there is no consensus. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, when asked if the debate on climate change is over, told the BBC, “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view” (BBC News, 2010). When asked, “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860–1880, 1910–1940 and 1975– 1998 were identical?” Jones replied,
Temperature data for the period 1860–1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860–1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910–40 and 1975–1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975–1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Finally, when asked “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming” Jones answered “yes.” His replies contradict claims made by IPCC.
Mike Hulme, also a professor at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to IPCC reports, wrote in 2009: “What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? – represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change” (Hulme, 2009, p. 75). He admits “Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate” (p. 83). On the subject of IPCC’s credibility, he admits it is “governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel’s work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists” (p. 95). All this is exactly what IPCC critics have been saying for years.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
DO YOU KNOW THE LETTER TO THE UN SIGNED BY 500 SCIENTISTS IN RESPONSE TO GRETA THUMBERG'S SPEACH?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/

"
Lost amid the coverage of Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg at last week’s U.N. Global Climate Summit were the 500 international scientists, engineers and other stakeholders sounding a very different message: “There is no climate emergency.”

The European Climate Declaration, spearheaded by the Amsterdam-based Climate Intelligence Foundation [CLINTEL], described the leading climate models as “unfit” and urged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to pursue a climate policy based on “sound science.”"

"The sheer number of prominent signers with scientific and engineering credentials belied the contention that only a handful of fringe researchers and fossil-fuel shills oppose the climate-catastrophe “consensus.”

The U.S. contingent was made up of 45 U.S. professors, engineers and scientists, including MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen; Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton, and Stanford University professor emeritus Elliott D. Bloom, as well as several signers formerly affiliated with NASA.

"Convincing climate-focused institutions like the UN to engage on such topics has been a struggle, said Guus Berkhout, professor emeritus of geophysics at Delft University of Technology and a CLINTEL co-founder.

"“We promote a scientific discussion at the highest level between both sides of the climate debate, but the mainstream refuses so far,” said Mr. Berkhout in an email. “They always come with the same arguments: they are right and we are wrong. Period!”"
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Here is a scientist that exposes MMGW that looks good and serious. His book available to read and download here:

https://www.academia.edu/40379492/Global_warming_false_alarm_-_Ralph_B._Alexander

Second edition, updated and revised, 2012

Page 137

"Although we’re a little more enlightened today, climate change skeptics often find they need to keep quiet about their views, especially in a professional setting, as I mentioned at the beginning of the book. There has been more than one recent instance of university academic staff being let go because of their skeptical stance on global warming.

In March 2012, a group of 50 former NASA employees wrote an open letter to the space agency complaining about the “unbridled advocacy by NASA and GISS” of CO2 being the major cause of climate change, and pointing out that this position was completely at odds with NASA’s history of objectively evaluating its scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements."

It’s clear that the letter’s authors, who included seven former astronauts, only felt safe enough to voice their concerns after retiring from NASA."


Page 2

"The alarmists have spun such a web of deception that any science contrary to the view of human-induced global warming is either ignored, played down, or deliberately distorted. News releases and scientific papers that don’t adhere to the IPCC “party line” on CO2 are frequently sidelined by a barrage of attacks, sometimes vicious and personal.

Both groups defend their views vehemently, although the debate, if it can be called a debate, is mostly conducted out of public sight in the silent world of Internet blogs. Actual debates between the two sides are rare, alarmists repeatedly refusing invitations to publicly discuss the issues, usually on the grounds that their skeptic counterparts are “unqualified” (read: dispute the conventional wisdom) or that there is nothing to discuss."

"Until recently, the mainstream media presented the alarmist viewpoint almost exclusively, as if man-made global warming were an established fact, a belief that no longer needed to be questioned or debated. To my amazement, this stand-point has even been adopted by many of the world’s most eminent professional scientific societies. An important part of the belief in global warming orthodoxy is the deeply ingrained misconception that a scientific consensus exists, that the scientific community speaks with one voice on CO2 and climate change."

"Because of this, skeptics have been frequently denigrated and even publicly vilified by alarmists. Even today, alarmists persist in bad-mouthing anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their convictions by calling them “deniers” – an attempt to link global warming skeptics with the immorality of Holocaust deniers."

"Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who is the current IPCC chairman, has ridiculed those who question the so-called consensus by comparing skeptics to members of the Flat Earth Society, which he said probably has about a dozen members in modern times."

"The tide has turned, however, in the last few years and public opinion has now swung toward climate change skeptics. While the general public was evenly divided between alarmist and skeptical views of global warming when the 1st edition of this book was published three years ago, recent polls indicate that the percentage of skeptics in the public at large is currently around 60%."


National newspapers in several countries now carry regular articles that present skeptical opinions or question the notion that our climate is headed on disaster."
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
I would also like to express a remark that has been in my mind for a while which I never hear being said:

it's not a wise idea to discard studies funded (totally or partially) by oil companies a priori, that is just because they are funded by oil companies.

Why? Because if MMGW is not true, oil companies are just right to fund studies to defend their interests. Wouldn't you do it? I would. If MMGW is not true, they are doing a service to us to prove it's not true. But certainly, a bit of caution is also wise, because they might distort facts to prove in any manner they are innocent.
 
Top