Thread: More Fake Consensus

In 2007 the BBC proclaimed that it would no longer give skeptics equal air time because.

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...ury/report.pdf

Now some skeptics were curious about this high-level seminar with the "best scientific experts". Who where the experts? The BBC is still a governemnt entity and as such the people have a right to know. So a blogger named Tony Newbery FOIed the BBC for the list of the "best scienfitc experts". The BBC fought back arguing that journalistic purposes are exempt from the FOI and won.

The BBC patted itself on the back believing that the "best scientific experts" claim now stood for good. Too bad for the BBC no one ever told them that the internet has an archive. And their little secret "high-level seminar" was at one time not so secret. Actually before the BBC tried to pass of their seminar as a meeting of "the best scientific experts" it was actually billed on the internet as just a collection of NGO hacks and had only 2 active scientists attending. While this may have been wiped from the internet so the BBC could sell it as "the best scientific experts" the wayback machine still had it full of all the Greenpeace activists etc.

http://web.archive.org/web/200711081...9230ff4d8b8ac6

Read all about it on climateaudit.org
http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/13/b...tific-experts/

Oh what a terrible web we weave. Now once again we have the media lying to the people about "consensus". And then fighting the people right to now to be shown as bigger frauds than they already were.

Here's a scenario. The news reports that a third of people have no dentist, and some are pulling their own teeth. The top expert in dentistry is wheeled on to say how terrible this is, and that we need more dentists. You don't bring on some nutjob who uses some string and a door to pull out a tooth, to give "balance".

Originally Posted by Colonel K

Here's a scenario. The news reports that a third of people have no dentist, and some are pulling their own teeth. The top expert in dentistry is wheeled on to say how terrible this is, and that we need more dentists. You don't bring on some nutjob who uses some string and a door to pull out a tooth, to give "balance".

Reductio ad absurdum but we know you love your logical fallacies.

Not to mention that the field of dentistry is one in which the minority opinion has overtime become the majority such as the debate between metal and porcelain fillings and caps so its a bad field to argue for scientific consensus.

I kind of like how you just ignore that the BBC lied. If consensus were so easy to prove why the need to lie about it?

Our own Poptech has made it quite clear to everyone that there is no such consensus.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

Here's a scenario. The news reports that a third of people have no dentist, and some are pulling their own teeth. The top expert in dentistry is wheeled on to say how terrible this is, and that we need more dentists. You don't bring on some nutjob who uses some string and a door to pull out a tooth, to give "balance".

You tell him Dara!

Originally Posted by Panzerkampfwagen

You tell him Dara!

If you want to have a circle jerk just PM him for contact info.

Originally Posted by Windigo

If you want to have a circle jerk just PM him for contact info.

If you didn't get the reference that's not my fault.

Well it appears that the same for BBC executives that decided to sell this secret meeting of 28 NGO's and activists as "the best scientific experts". Are the exact same four who have just resigned or stepped aside for the fake Lord McAlpine smear.

https://twitter.com/BruceHoult/statu...50852215242752

Originally Posted by Windigo

In 2007 the BBC proclaimed that it would no longer give skeptics equal air time because.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...ury/report.pdf

Now some skeptics were curious about this high-level seminar with the "best scientific experts". Who where the experts? The BBC is still a governemnt entity and as such the people have a right to know. So a blogger named Tony Newbery FOIed the BBC for the list of the "best scienfitc experts". The BBC fought back arguing that journalistic purposes are exempt from the FOI and won.

The BBC patted itself on the back believing that the "best scientific experts" claim now stood for good. Too bad for the BBC no one ever told them that the internet has an archive. And their little secret "high-level seminar" was at one time not so secret. Actually before the BBC tried to pass of their seminar as a meeting of "the best scientific experts" it was actually billed on the internet as just a collection of NGO hacks and had only 2 active scientists attending. While this may have been wiped from the internet so the BBC could sell it as "the best scientific experts" the wayback machine still had it full of all the Greenpeace activists etc.

http://web.archive.org/web/200711081...9230ff4d8b8ac6

Read all about it on climateaudit.org
http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/13/b...tific-experts/

Oh what a terrible web we weave. Now once again we have the media lying to the people about "consensus". And then fighting the people right to now to be shown as bigger frauds than they already were.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......it is really amusing to see you still futilely trying to deny reality by playing with silly strawmen.

The scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes remains completely solid, as it has been for several decades now.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (free to reproduce)

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]

Or, for a very clear explanation of just what this consensus means and how it happens, check this out:

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Wow wikipedia. Do you have something that isnt a strawman. The argument is over forcing and feedbacks. Not if CO2 has IR trapping properties.

Originally Posted by Windigo

Wow wikipedia. Do you have something that isnt a strawman. The argument is over forcing and feedbacks. Not if CO2 has IR trapping properties.

No, the argument is over consensus, as the thread states. And since you started the thread and chose the topic, one would have thought you would remember that.

Here's the consensus in one easy pie chart:

Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.jpg

The BBC was right to reject "balance" in reporting truth vs. non-truth. Regardless of how they arrived at the right decision, it was the right decision.