More Fake Consensus

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Windigo, Nov 13, 2012.

  1. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In 2007 the BBC proclaimed that it would no longer give skeptics equal air time because.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/asset...rt_research/impartiality_21century/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/20071108...df?PHPSESSID=646ac9912b785ecd5f9230ff4d8b8ac6

    Read all about it on climateaudit.org
    http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/13/bbcs-best-scientific-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.
     
  2. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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".
     
  3. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  4. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You tell him Dara!
     
  5. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you want to have a circle jerk just PM him for contact info.
     
  6. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you didn't get the reference that's not my fault.
     
  7. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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/status/268150852215242752
     
  8. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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?
     
  9. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow wikipedia. Do you have something that isnt a strawman. The argument is over forcing and feedbacks. Not if CO2 has IR trapping properties.
     
  10. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody rejects the greenhouse gas theory. Again you are lying about what the debate is, forcing and feedbacks. And this thread is more about lying about a fake consensus. Something you obviously do quite well.


    Once again you jump into a thread with more fake consensus to try and talk around the fact that the BBC lied. If there was a true consensus you wouldn't have to keep lying about it. If consensuses was so easy to prove then your side should be able to have an open discussion and just stomp us skeptics. But everytime we do have a debate your side gets stomped such as the infamous IQ2 debate. And lets not forget our little debates where I had to spend about 10 pages proving to you that a house heats from the ceiling down because you didn't know what stratification actually was.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8RI0tRcNs&feature=relmfu
     
  12. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure they do. Gerlich & Tscheuschner reject it, and their paper is still proudly trumpeted by PF's own Poptech on his personal website. Climate denial knows no bounds.

    But that's not even what the pie chart is about: it's about global warming.

    There is not much scientific debate left about forcings, which are well known (except for aerosols). There is a debate about feedbacks, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about an allegedly "fake" consensus.

    The BBC lied? Where? Just to recap, this is what the BBC said:
    1. They held a seminar (true).
    2. The seminar was attended by some of the best scientific experts (true, since two are indeed "some").
    3. The BBC has changed their policy because of the seminar (true).

    So it's all true.

    If the consensus were fake, you would actually have evidence on your side, and you wouldn't have to keep claiming it was fake in spite of the evidence.

    Oh, was that peer-reviewed? In what journal did it appear?

    Oh yeah, I remember now: weren't you claiming that the ceiling was hotter than the furnace? Brilliant! and it only took you 10 pages ...
     
  13. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll address the rest later but this is kind of funny.

    You cant be serious. They try 28 NGO's two activist scientists there as part of NGO's and you say that they were being truthful. You side has no honor or integrity what so ever. Seriously how do you think that trying to make such an argument makes you look truthful. When you are in a whole you need to stop digging. A 'it depends on what the definition of is is. Just makes you look like more of lair than you already do.
     
  14. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you admit that there were some scientists there. Others were there too? Big deal. That's not a lie.
     
  15. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I admit??? I said in my first post that of the "28 experts" only 2 were active scientists. So please zip it! Some times you are fun to debate with. Sometimes your arguments make me want to puke. As they are little more than attempts at deflection that show poorly on you. Trying to pass a meeting of NGO's off as a meeting of some of the best scientific experts is a lie. Trying to make it not to is making your side look like even bigger liars.
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Hang on - there is a disparity here between what you are CLAIMING is happening and what is actually happening on your link



    Even they are not making the claims that you are about this - that it is a "fake consensus"

    It is one group lobbying the BBC

    How you get from one to the other baffles me
     
  17. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only in the mind of pseudo-scientists is a declaration of consensus by a TV station important.
     
  18. Windigo

    Windigo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    15,026
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Considering that the BBC is a major news source yes it is.

    Its also important to remember that the BBC is a government owned media that is by its charter supposed to remain impartial.

    Its also important to remember that the BBC lied before the court about this meeting. There is a word for that.
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The ABC Australia (our version of the BBC) faced the same dilemma - although, by charter they are to remain impartial, they found they were having to give air time to people like Christopher Monckton, of whom you must have heard, him being British and all (and possibly one of the prime reasons the Beeb got sick and tired of giving air time to Keeks)

    What our ABC did was AIR programs like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (much to the outrage of a lot of Aussies) but then they followed that with an expose of the "science" or rather the cherry picked data shown in the program.
     
  20. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And how many here have used news sources to make claims of scientific consensus?
    Show me one post in a scientific discussion that links to the BBC as a primary source.
     
  21. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Fake consensus" comes when only committed Warmers reach that alleged consensus but cannot convince skeptics.

    Einstein's theory of relativity was proven solidly enough to convert the skeptics. Not so for Global Warming.
     
  22. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    False. Consensus does not imply unanimity. It implies overwhelming support. Climate change has achieved that.

    Wrong again. Anti-science conservatives still disbelieve relativity to this very day.
     

Share This Page