You might have seen this Climate Change pseudoscience somewhere...

there are a lot of temperature readings available for different times and from various types of thermometers. My problem is identifying which readings are useful to our discussion.

 

Check again.

 

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers
Guest Blogger
This is a re-post from the CO2 Coalition, here. Re-posted with permission. [Ed. Note] The number of opinion pieces disguised as “Fact Checks,” and the use of them to censor…

". . . On Earth Day this year, the Washington Times published an op-ed that I wrote titled “There is no climate emergency – We love CO2 and so should you.” Not long after publication, the paper’s Facebook post on the commentary was labeled “false and misleading” and their ad for it was rejected. This was based on a lengthy “fact-check” titled Washington Times presents list of false and misleading statements about the impacts of CO2 and climate change by Climate Feedback (CF). It was composed by eight scientists and upon detailed review of their “fact-check,” it became clear why they were not labeled “experts.”

In order to rebut this review, I asked six of the top experts in the world in various fields related to climate change to assess the statements by the Climate Feedback reviewers for accuracy and validity. All the scientists I consulted are members of the CO2 Coalition, a non-profit scientific coalition based in Arlington, Va. All agree that there is no man-made climate emergency. . . . "

 

As expected, it's just a pile of surmise and imputed conspiracy theory.
". . . The research also found that the five companies listed support their lobbying expenditures with a financial outlay of $195 million annually for focused branding activities which suggest they support action against climate change. The most common tactics employed are drawing attention to low carbon, positioning the company as a climate expert and acknowledging climate concern while ignoring solutions. The report said that the campaigns are misleading the public given that the companies listed continue to expand their oil and gas extraction activities with only 3% of spending directed to low carbon projects. Both Shell and Chevron rejected the report's findings and reinforced their commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and addressing climate change. . . ."

 

Results show the opposite. We gave gov "tools" and they regulated manufacturing to unregulated China, where they contaminate our air, water, and soil at extreme levels. By "tools" you mean tax money to be used to gain/maintain power. The sales pitch does not match the product.

I recognize the many problems associated with pollution. I also recognize the false claims of concern from those whose actions say otherwise.

Are you a Vegan?

 

We should develop international plans to make sure climate change—and other problems like overpopulation—don't seriously damage our habitat. What we have now are a number of "green" businesses promoting the sale of technologies too soon in the development phase and lobbying government to subsidize them. We also have techno dummies like Bernie Sanders opposing the like of nuclear power generation that might save us. I won't even get into the idiots blocking pipelines.

I don't think we should trust that new technologies will just come along and save us. Some government R&D seems necessary.

The solutions won't be painless, especially those involving poor countries with exploding populations.

 

Asking someone if they're a vegan is a red herring.

 

No matter how many we kill or hurt in the process?

 

I blame indoctrination. It shapes what some of these posters think and believe. And belief is the only currency they trade with. There aren't conversations about the data, there are conversations about which data we can review, which of course is conveniently supportive oft he belief model. When pressed, conformance proxies then get trotted out, as well as consensus assertions that flatly define the scientific method, but who cares... I doubt any real conversation can be had. I think that is sad. There are lots of areas where most of us could agree. But unfortunately, the orthodoxy won't allow for that.

 

Its important to know that the strong opinions people project do not match their true intentions. Its like when republicans claim to care about little babies. As soon as they take their first breath and effort is required, that concern magically disappears.

Its all about image and you are not fooling anyone.

There are Dems that walk the walk and avoid consuming products that harm the environment. Some reps adopt unwanted children. I can at least respect their honest opinion.

 

No irony using "conspiracy theory
Snopes took a deep look at these papers. Some of the papers weren't even about Global Warming, but about weather conditions in very specific regions. Snopes reached out to the authors of these papers. Not a single one of the authors they contacted. Graphs were altered, or taken out of context, and parts were dishonestly removed, added and modified. Soon after, NTZ updated the list to almost 400. When Snopes attempted to contact the author, he flat out publicly admitted that he doesn't CARE about doing due diligence or verifying his nonsense.

However, this has not kept some posters who are adict to pseudoscience from polluting this forum with them.

Don't be fooled. Graphs are altered, manipulated, edited.... The links are embedded, so in case you have problems finding them, here again are the most relevant ones, showing examples of how those graphs and studies were manipulated.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/
https://skepticalscience.com/80_graphs_climate_myths.html[/QUOTE]
And of course the angelic scientist on the side of God, e..g alarmists, would never alter data or graphs to make their side stronger. A continue the stream of funding from LW elitists.

 

So you admit to your own bias then. Consensus isn't a function of science. It's a function of opinion marketing. Is that your only line of defense then? You seem to misunderstand the process that produced the "consensus" that you seem to only allow to exist. There were other consensus beliefs, in the past. Flat earth, Monarchial divinity.. and when pressed, those folks actually killed millions of folks for their non belief. That seems to be the case here. And Golem the grand does seem appropriate as the great inquisitor reviews the acceptable conformance to the fake consensus that you push.

 

And yet over those 120 years actual observations fail to show ANY drastic trends, more occurrences of hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes, flooding, fires, etc. and only a 1.5 celsius temperature change - a totally fabricated metric, by the way. A single number representing the state of climate over the entire world?

 

And how many of those older ten thousand papers "predictions" stand up to today's actual data?

 

My website is better than your website.

 

Koonin's book "Unsettled" is a masterpiece! Clear, logical, and well documented. I read it a few months ago, highlighting key points and data - the book looks like it was printed on bright yellow paper! Every page is informative thought-provoking.

 

Clearly, this is the justification democrats will use for the "Ministry of Truth" to remove you website... LOL

 

How is R&D hurting people?

In the end, some people may not be able to do as they please. We should try to have as light a hand as possible consistent with protecting humanity.

 

It is more than R&D. When Biden announced the end of fossil fuels, investment money stopped and prices went up.

 

I think you're bogged down in personalities.

 

I'm not Biden. On his first day, Old Joe cancelled the Keystone pipeline—a big mistake.

 

You are far from correct. I am able to see through the BS people try to sell by looking at ones actions behind the words they say.

 

Journal of the American Climate Zealot?

 

Scientific journals, nothing you've ever seen, so don't worry about it.

 

That was common sense.

It's some of the nastiest, most poisonous crude in the world. Even better, it turns into low grade diesel that is banned here.