Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change

Please answer the question,

Can information on Wikipedia be inaccurate or not derive from a reliable source?

 

Of course that is why I responded with the answer I did. The subtly of which was obviously beyond you

 

Why are you embarrassing yourself by repeating strawmen deflections?

 

Powell's argument is a strawman! Why is Powell leaving out skeptical papers and falsely implying that the 13950 all support "anthropogenic global warming" when he did not search for that phrase?

Again, please answer these questions,

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the results that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the results from Jim Powell's search besides the "23-24" endorse AGW?

 

OK, Powell, is in on the conspiracy. We get you.

 

Yes and he blatantly ignores any valid criticisms such as the very large percentage of his "850 papers" that are NOT only not peer reviewed but are not research papers or do not contest the main hypothesis of AGW.

He disputes the analysis done at sceptical science but does not ever give an analysis of how many 850 are of the total number of papers, I mean the AR4 cited over 3,000 papers from memory

 

Actually I would like you to answer why you have included so many papers from Energy and Environment

Betting the answer has "conspiracy theory" flavour ie "They cannot get their papers published because it is a CONSPIRACY to keep them out

 

Denialists are either the modern day equivalents of flat-earthers or propagandists working on behalf of the fossil-fuel industry.

 

Strawman. Keep dodging,

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the results that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the results from Jim Powell's search besides the "23-24" endorse AGW?

 

Yours are the strawmen. The science is incontrovertible. Keep digging, you'll eventually get to Australia.

 

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 19th February 2013.

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/02/18/secrets-of-the-rich/

Conspiracies against the public don’t get much uglier than this. As the Guardian revealed last week, two secretive organisations working for US billionaires have spent $118m to ensure that no action is taken to prevent manmade climate change(1). While inflicting untold suffering on the world’s people, their funders have used these opaque structures to ensure that their identities are never exposed.

The two organisations – the Donors’ Trust and the Donors’ Capital Fund – were set up as political funding channels for people handing over $1m or more. They have financed 102 organisations which either dismiss climate science or downplay the need to take action. The large number of recipients creates the impression that there are many independent voices challenging climate science. These groups, working through the media, mobilising gullible voters and lobbying politicians, helped to derail Obama’s cap and trade bill and the climate talks at Copenhagen. Now they’re seeking to prevent the US president from trying again(2).

This covers only part of the funding. In total, between 2002 and 2010 the two identity-laundering groups paid $311m to 480 organisations(3), most of which take positions of interest to the ultra-rich and the corporations they run: less tax, less regulation, a smaller public sector. Around a quarter of the money received by the rightwing opinion swarm comes from the two foundations(4). If this funding were not effective, it wouldn’t exist: the ultra-rich didn’t get that way by throwing their money around randomly. The organisations they support are those which advance their interests.

A small number of the funders have been exposed by researchers trawling through tax records. They include the billionaire Koch brothers (paying into the two groups through their Knowledge and Progress Fund) and the DeVos family (the billionaire owners of Amway)(5). More significantly, we now know a little more about the recipients. Many describe themselves as free market or conservative think tanks.

Among them are the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Hudson Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Mont Pelerin Society and the Discovery Institute(6). All of them pose as learned societies, earnestly trying to determine the best interests of the public. The exposure of this funding reinforces the claim by David Frum, formerly a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, that such groups “increasingly function as public-relations agencies”(7).

One name in particular jumped out at me: American Friends of the IEA. The Institute of Economic Affairs is a British group which, like all the others, calls itself a free market thinktank. Scarcely a day goes by on which its staff are not interviewed in the broadcast media, promoting the dreary old billionaires’ agenda: less tax for the rich, less help for the poor, less spending by the state, less regulation for business. In the first 13 days of February, its people were on the BBC ten times(.

Never have I heard its claim to be an independent thinktank challenged by the BBC. When, in 2007, I called the institute a business lobby group, its then director-general responded, in a letter to the Guardian, that “we are independent of all business interests”(9). Oh yes?

The database, published by the Canadian site desmogblog.com, shows that American Friends of the IEA has received (up to 2010) $215,000 from the two secretive funds(10). When I spoke to the IEA’s fundraising manager, she confirmed that the sole purpose of American Friends is to raise money for the organisation in London(11). She agreed that the IEA has never disclosed the Donors’ Trust money it has received. She denied that the institute is a sockpuppet organisation: purporting to be independent while working for some very powerful US interests.

Would the BBC allow someone from Bell Pottinger to discuss an issue of concern to its sponsors without revealing the sponsors’ identity? No. So what’s the difference? What distinguishes an acknowledged public relations company taking money from a corporation or a billionaire from a so-called thinktank, funded by the same source to promote the same agenda?

The IEA is registered with the Charity Commission as an educational charity(12). The same goes for Nigel Lawson’s climate misinformation campaign (the Global Warming Policy Foundation(13)) and a host of other dubious “thinktanks”. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it is outrageous that the Charity Commission allows organisations which engage in political lobbying and refuse to reveal their major funders to claim charitable status(14).

This is the new political frontier. Corporations and their owners have learnt not to show their hands. They tend to avoid the media, aware that they will damage their brands by being seen to promote the brutal agenda that furthers their interests. So they have learnt from the tobacco companies: stay hidden and pay other people to do it for you(15).

They need a network of independent-looking organisations which can produce plausible arguments in defence of their positions. Once the arguments have been developed, projecting them is easy. Most of the media are owned by billionaires, who are happy to promote the work of people funded by the same class(16). One of the few outlets they don’t own – the BBC – has been disgracefully incurious about the identity of those to whom it gives a platform.

By these means the ultra-rich come to dominate the political conversation, without declaring themselves(17,1. Those they employ are clever and well-trained. They have money their opponents can only dream of. They are skilled at rechannelling the public anger which might otherwise have been directed at their funders: the people who have tanked the economy, who use the living planet as their dustbin, who won’t pay their taxes and who demand that the poor must pay for the mistakes of the rich. Anger, thanks to the work of these hired hands, is instead aimed at the victims or opponents of the billionaires: people on benefits, the trade unions, Greenpeace, the American Civil Liberties Union.

The answer, as ever, is transparency. As the so-called thinktanks come to play an ever more important role in politics, we need to know who they are working for. Any group – whether the Institute of Economic Affairs or Friends of the Earth – which attempts to influence public life should declare all donations greater than £1000. We’ve had a glimpse of who’s paying. Now we need to see the rest of the story.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/donors-trust-funding-climate-denial-networks

3. http://desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax

4. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...or-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos

5. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...or-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos

6. See the xls attachment at the bottom of http://desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax

7. http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

8. http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/media-coverage

9. http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/media-coverage/naughty-george

10. http://desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax

11. Caroline Rollag, 18th February 2013.

12. http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk...steredCharityNumber=235351&SubsidiaryNumber=0

13. For a good summary of the GWPF and its secret funding, please see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/15/secret-funding-climate-sceptics-not-restricted-us

14. Here’s what happened when I tried to get the conservative “think tanks” to tell me who funds them: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/09/12/think-of-a-tank/

15. For a fascinating account of how the Tea Party movement was orignally proposed by tobacco companies, before it was launched by the Koch brothers, see this paper: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.abstract

16. See these revelations about the collusion between the corporate media and the Adam Smith Institute: http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/01/plutocracy’s-boot-boys/

17. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/10/25/toxic-brew/

18. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/01/how-the-billionaires-broke-the-system/

- - - Updated - - -

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 19th February 2013.

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/02/18/secrets-of-the-rich/

Conspiracies against the public don’t get much uglier than this. As the Guardian revealed last week, two secretive organisations working for US billionaires have spent $118m to ensure that no action is taken to prevent manmade climate change(1). While inflicting untold suffering on the world’s people, their funders have used these opaque structures to ensure that their identities are never exposed.

The two organisations – the Donors’ Trust and the Donors’ Capital Fund – were set up as political funding channels for people handing over $1m or more. They have financed 102 organisations which either dismiss climate science or downplay the need to take action. The large number of recipients creates the impression that there are many independent voices challenging climate science. These groups, working through the media, mobilising gullible voters and lobbying politicians, helped to derail Obama’s cap and trade bill and the climate talks at Copenhagen. Now they’re seeking to prevent the US president from trying again(2).

This covers only part of the funding. In total, between 2002 and 2010 the two identity-laundering groups paid $311m to 480 organisations(3), most of which take positions of interest to the ultra-rich and the corporations they run: less tax, less regulation, a smaller public sector. Around a quarter of the money received by the rightwing opinion swarm comes from the two foundations(4). If this funding were not effective, it wouldn’t exist: the ultra-rich didn’t get that way by throwing their money around randomly. The organisations they support are those which advance their interests.

A small number of the funders have been exposed by researchers trawling through tax records. They include the billionaire Koch brothers (paying into the two groups through their Knowledge and Progress Fund) and the DeVos family (the billionaire owners of Amway)(5). More significantly, we now know a little more about the recipients. Many describe themselves as free market or conservative think tanks.

Among them are the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Hudson Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Mont Pelerin Society and the Discovery Institute(6). All of them pose as learned societies, earnestly trying to determine the best interests of the public. The exposure of this funding reinforces the claim by David Frum, formerly a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, that such groups “increasingly function as public-relations agencies”(7).

One name in particular jumped out at me: American Friends of the IEA. The Institute of Economic Affairs is a British group which, like all the others, calls itself a free market thinktank. Scarcely a day goes by on which its staff are not interviewed in the broadcast media, promoting the dreary old billionaires’ agenda: less tax for the rich, less help for the poor, less spending by the state, less regulation for business. In the first 13 days of February, its people were on the BBC ten times(.

Never have I heard its claim to be an independent thinktank challenged by the BBC. When, in 2007, I called the institute a business lobby group, its then director-general responded, in a letter to the Guardian, that “we are independent of all business interests”(9). Oh yes?

The database, published by the Canadian site desmogblog.com, shows that American Friends of the IEA has received (up to 2010) $215,000 from the two secretive funds(10). When I spoke to the IEA’s fundraising manager, she confirmed that the sole purpose of American Friends is to raise money for the organisation in London(11). She agreed that the IEA has never disclosed the Donors’ Trust money it has received. She denied that the institute is a sockpuppet organisation: purporting to be independent while working for some very powerful US interests.

Would the BBC allow someone from Bell Pottinger to discuss an issue of concern to its sponsors without revealing the sponsors’ identity? No. So what’s the difference? What distinguishes an acknowledged public relations company taking money from a corporation or a billionaire from a so-called thinktank, funded by the same source to promote the same agenda?

The IEA is registered with the Charity Commission as an educational charity(12). The same goes for Nigel Lawson’s climate misinformation campaign (the Global Warming Policy Foundation(13)) and a host of other dubious “thinktanks”. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it is outrageous that the Charity Commission allows organisations which engage in political lobbying and refuse to reveal their major funders to claim charitable status(14).

This is the new political frontier. Corporations and their owners have learnt not to show their hands. They tend to avoid the media, aware that they will damage their brands by being seen to promote the brutal agenda that furthers their interests. So they have learnt from the tobacco companies: stay hidden and pay other people to do it for you(15).

They need a network of independent-looking organisations which can produce plausible arguments in defence of their positions. Once the arguments have been developed, projecting them is easy. Most of the media are owned by billionaires, who are happy to promote the work of people funded by the same class(16). One of the few outlets they don’t own – the BBC – has been disgracefully incurious about the identity of those to whom it gives a platform.

By these means the ultra-rich come to dominate the political conversation, without declaring themselves(17,1. Those they employ are clever and well-trained. They have money their opponents can only dream of. They are skilled at rechannelling the public anger which might otherwise have been directed at their funders: the people who have tanked the economy, who use the living planet as their dustbin, who won’t pay their taxes and who demand that the poor must pay for the mistakes of the rich. Anger, thanks to the work of these hired hands, is instead aimed at the victims or opponents of the billionaires: people on benefits, the trade unions, Greenpeace, the American Civil Liberties Union.

The answer, as ever, is transparency. As the so-called thinktanks come to play an ever more important role in politics, we need to know who they are working for. Any group – whether the Institute of Economic Affairs or Friends of the Earth – which attempts to influence public life should declare all donations greater than £1000. We’ve had a glimpse of who’s paying. Now we need to see the rest of the story.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/donors-trust-funding-climate-denial-networks

3. http://desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax

4. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-donor-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos

5. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-donor-capital-fund-dark-money-koch-bradley-devos

6. See the xls attachment at the bottom of http://desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax

7. http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

8. http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/media-coverage

9. http://www.iea.org.uk/in-the-media/media-coverage/naughty-george

10. http://desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax

11. Caroline Rollag, 18th February 2013.

12. http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=235351&SubsidiaryNumber=0

13. For a good summary of the GWPF and its secret funding, please see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/15/secret-funding-climate-sceptics-not-restricted-us

14. Here’s what happened when I tried to get the conservative “think tanks” to tell me who funds them: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/09/12/think-of-a-tank/

15. For a fascinating account of how the Tea Party movement was orignally proposed by tobacco companies, before it was launched by the Koch brothers, see this paper: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.abstract

16. See these revelations about the collusion between the corporate media and the Adam Smith Institute: http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/01/plutocracy%E2%80%99s-boot-boys/

17. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/10/25/toxic-brew/

18. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/01/how-the-billionaires-broke-the-system/

 

Why are you lying? I never ignored any criticism and have addressed each one in extensive detail.

(FYI, It is not "850" but "1100+" peer-reviewed papers.)

Name one counted paper off the list that is not peer-reviewed.

Your strawman arguments are again addressed in the Rebuttals to Criticisms section,

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not a research paper.
Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are "research" papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Review papers under go the same peer-review process as research papers and are considered scientifically valid.

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not debunk/refute AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are not getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.

No I did not simply dispute it, I buried it as my refutation was total and complete.

Total number of what? "Results" that include a certain phrase using a certain search engine? Why would I make myself look like a computer illiterate like Skeptical Science did to themselves?

 

I haven't but why would peer-reviewed papers from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal cited multiple times by the IPCC not be included? Again answered in the Rebuttals to Criticism section,

Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.
Rebuttal: The scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1000 papers from over 300 other journals on the list.

Despite your lies, I have never argued any such conspiracy theories.

Still nothing.

 

Why is Powell leaving out hundreds of skeptical papers and falsely implying that the 13950 except 23-24 all support "anthropogenic global warming" when he did not search for that phrase?

 

If 99.84% of doctors tell me that I have cancer, the only thing I'm praying to God for is that the chemo works.

 

Two questions for you. A simple yes or no will suffice:

Do you know what constitutes a consensus in science?

Is it your view there is no scientific consensus in relation to AGW?

 

Let me know when you can answer my questions.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the percentage is fraudulent.

Powell is not even asking the 13950 doctors if you have cancer. He simply cherry picked 23-24 that say you 100% don't and then implied the rest said yes.

 

So you are not going to answer? It's not surprising since this gets to the heart of the matter.

 

Still waiting on your answers,

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the results that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the results from Jim Powell's search besides the "23-24" endorse AGW?

 

Irrelevant sideshow. Now are you going to answer my key questions - which will expose you for the charlatan that you are - or not?

 

Irrelevant? These are directly on topic,

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the results that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the results from Jim Powell's search besides the "23-24" endorse AGW?

Keep dodging, everyone can see you cannot answer these questions.

 

You are deliberately dodging my elephant in the room questions because you know it will expose you. Now answer or concede.

 

Why are you so scared to answer these questions? Do the answers expose Powell's study for the fraudulent propaganda that it is?

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the results that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the results from Jim Powell's search besides the "23-24" endorse AGW?

I concede nothing as I have been trying to get you to answer on topic questions. Your failure to do so is rather embarrassing.

 

Your questions are an irrelevant sideshow designed to deflect away from the key issue underpinning your denialism. They therefore must be viewed within that context. You had an ideal opportunity to address my questions and thus support your case that AGW is a conspiracy. You have failed miserably. I therefore take your refusal to answer my key questions as a FAIL.

The same questions remain open to other denialists/skeptics.

 

You are apparently mentally unstable. I've proven my point, you cannot answer simple questions directly on topic to this discussion.