It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Given that over 97 percent of climate scientists agree on the matter, the fact that anyone is questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) remains an amazing phenomenon.
If your child were sick, and 97 percent of doctors recommended one treatment for them, which treatment would you use?
In 2008, the Republican and Democratic parties were generally seeing eye to eye on ACD, as evidenced by this commercial broadcast nationally, in which Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich sat together and said that climate change needed to be addressed.
The fossil fuel industry, seeing the writing on the wall, dumped more than half a billion dollars into the coffers of their lobbyists in 2009, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The fact that there is any "doubt" about the science and reality of ACD is not happenstance - it is the direct result of a carefully orchestrated project that has included heavy lobbying, bought-and-paid-for pro-fossil fuel industry scientists and a massive amount of propaganda.
We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
it is the direct result of a carefully orchestrated project that has included heavy lobbying, bought-and-paid-for pro-fossil fuel industry scientists and a massive amount of propaganda.
a reply to: Grimpachi
and by the way they have been funded by ExxonMobil and CFACT a lobbying group.
“In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”
― Leon Trotsky
In 2014, it was revealed that Springer had published 16 fake papers in its journals that had been computer-generated using SCIgen. Springer subsequently removed all the papers from these journals. IEEE had also done the same thing by removing more than 100 fake papers from its conference proceedings.
The academic publishing company BertelsmannSpringer was formed after Bertelsmann bought a majority stake in Springer-Verlag in 1999. The British investment groups Cinven and Candover bought BertelsmannSpringer from Bertelsmann in 2003. They merged the company in 2004 with the Dutch publisher Kluwer Academic Publishers which they bought from Wolters Kluwer in 2002, to form Springer Science+Business Media.
Springer acquired the open-access publisher BioMed Central in October 2008 for an undisclosed amount.
In 2009, Cinven and Candover sold Springer to two private equity firms, EQT Partners and Government of Singapore Investment Corporation. The closing of the sale was confirmed in February 2010 after the competition authorities in the USA and in Europe approved the transfer.
In 2011, Springer acquired Pharma Marketing and Publishing Services from Wolters Kluwer.
In 2013, the London-based private equity firm BC Partners acquired a majority stake in Springer from EQT and GIC for $4.4 billion.
On Watts Up With That (WUWT) another attempt at discrediting the scientific consensus paper by Cook et al. was made, this time by Christopher Monckton (archived here).
But what Monckton is saying here is that if you only count the papers from categories one and two (rejecting the largest endorsement category 3), then compare that to the number of papers that reject the consensus (category 5 to 7), you only get a consensus of 35.5% compared to his total of 121 papers. Which is only 1% endorsement if you compare it against all papers, which includes papers that don’t state a position. But those are not the numbers the paper states in its results.
Monckton is also the co-author of a paper that claims that the Cook et al. paper found a consensus of 0.3% based on comparing the papers that “actually” endorse that humans are the primary cause of global warming against the total amount of papers.
All these comparisons made by Monckton to lower the scientific consensus percentage are meaningless. You can’t compare papers that state no position on global warming with those that do. It’s nonsensical as the papers that don’t state a position often are researching an entirely different question/subject in climatology.
What if the CO2 scare turns out to be a clever financial scam hoax?
What if those companies involved in debunking the claims are correct afterall?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Every link, page, source that was thrown at me that stated that there was no warming or AGW was not real could be traced back to fossil fuel financiers.