The despicable lie of CLIMATE JUSTICE!!!

Debunked.
Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus
2013 › 06 › 01 ›
Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the “97% consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his “sample” is not representative.

“In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol



Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.

Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.

Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.
As Dr. Tol so eloquently put it,

“[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – Richard Tol

. . . .

 

So, you reject him solely because he has the "wrong" backers? Real scientific proof.

 

Wikipedia isn't an argument.

I know science isn't on your side, but you should at least try to throw some scientific terms around in an attempt to dazzle everyone with BS... maybe someone will think you're smart and become your fan??

 

Well, you certainly don't understand the science - because the actual science and observations disprove the theory.

And that's the challenge those of us who do understand the science, and the means by which the fraud is perpetrated upon the gullible, have - how do we get regular folks to look at the facts to arrive at the understanding that their government, and the government funded and supported "experts" are lying??

There are thousands of excellent, credible scientists out there that have been trying to get the truth out, but they are blacklisted from publishing and media exposure.

Do you even remember Climategate?? What it was about?? What it proved??

It proved that the people you believe are lying!!! They rigged the publishing and peer review process, they doctored their data, they refused to share their computer programs, algorithms, and methodologies, they blacklisted dissenting opinions and data, etc...

In short, they were caught red-handed committing the worst type scientific fraud!!

And those are the "experts" you believe??

Most of you don't possess the scientific knowledge to understand any of the arguments, pro or con - so you are just left with belief.

You're willing to ravage the economy and throw millions out of work; weaken the power grid until rolling brown outs and black outs are the norm; scale back crop production and farming to the point where our population cannot be sustained; shut down foundries, shut down steel mills, shut down agricultural processing plants, regulate thermostats, restrict driving, restrict freedom of movement, on and on and on and on...

It is literally an authoritarian's wet dream.

Ya think maybe the predictable consequences might be incentive enough to double check the math??

 

Define a "climate scientist".

Is a zoologist or entomologists a climate scientist? What about horticulturalists?

This trend must be good for human beings because human being are much better off than 50 years ago.

 

The despicable lie. Mayorkas said that the immigration crisis is due to climate change.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07...due-to-climate-change-dhs-secretary-mayorkas/

They use a graph that shows agricultural production in Central America is up 400% since 1970.

 

I do not want this thread bogged down with a debate about global warming. I want to hone in on the lies about how weather negatively effects people with pigmentation more than white people. How these lies and this dishonest agenda now has added racist hate speech to their vernacular.

These so called climate scientists many who do not even study climate primarily have been wrong. Environmentalists have been wrong since Malthus. They have been predicting catastrophe and collapse forever and they were wrong!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-malthus-is-still-wrong/

 

Nothing racist about starving people. I guess that is the plan. Starve black and brown people and then blame it on white induced climate change!

 

Um no that's not debunked. But I would have to agree that "climate change" would be a better search criterion. Albeit likely a much larger sample size to analyze and a much more difficult study to do. Categorizing 50,000 papers instead of 12,500. I see no reason to assume the result would actually be different though. We're not talking about something that systematically excludes these mysterious climate expert skeptics that you believe exist, at least from what you've shown. But would it be worth repeating the study to include more current papers and with better and wider search criteria? Yes.

 

Oh please. Climategate, yes, the fact that you think it shows so much shows your hand. If you think you know so much, use actual papers and actual data are what you should be using, not this bluster.

But to return to fundamentals, there is logically no doubt that human activity changes the climate. The only question is how fast. And there are way more problems with pollution than just climate change - it also increases asthma complications, heart attacks, and cancer locally. There are also security reasons for moving beyond fossil fuels. And what about the need for innovation to stay on top technologically? Conservatives are just being tools for an industry trying to string out the denial to maximize their profits, just like the tobacco companies.

 

That is the most basic of fallacies. Just because things happen concurrently, doesn't mean they're related. People are better off now because of technology, in part, though even that is a huge oversimplification of a very complicated thing. Fewer widespread wars than the last century helps too. You can look up what a climate scientist is. As to whether there is overlap for related disciplines, it depends on their specific area of research.

 

Yes. Debunked.
Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) - The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper
2015 › 03 › 26 › richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper

It’s been almost 2 years since Cook et al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature was published. If you’re like me, you’ve lost track of the paper’s flaws, there were just so many, and how it is misrepresented, which is most of the time. Richard Tol has published an excellent summary of Cook et al. (2013) in his blog post Global warming consensus claim does not stand up (author’s cut). An edited version appeared in the Australian on March 24, 2015.

Richard’s post begins:

Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97% consensus paper has been a runaway success. Downloaded over 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, with a dedicated column in the Guardian, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled.

It isn’t.

And it concludes:

If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

The rest of Richard Tol’s post is here. It’s well worth the time. . . .

 

Ah. The conspiracy theory comes to the surface.

 

As the Eagles sang, "They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast."
Fred Pearce on Climategate Revisited
2021 › 11 › 24 › fred-pearce-on-climategate-revisited
theories and findings. All came to light in the Climategate saga. ... years. Today’s post resurrects Fred Pearce’s “‘Climategate’ was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform

 

People are much better off when for decades we have been told that we would all be worse off and POC especially.

Being wrong decade after decade doesn't matter? It's always the next decade that only matters. What a load of crap.

Science that is never right about anything!

I asked you to define climate scientists. Paul Erlich the grandfather of CC bullcrap is a zoologist and entomologist. What does he know about climate or weather? Did not stop him from predicting that by 2000 Great Britain would be half under water and the population starving.

This type of alarmist bullshit is not science!

 

Damn.... Not only are we white devils oppressing everyone but we must be cunningly genius because we only destroy parts of the environment that effect black and brown people!!!

It is our destiny to rule the world. White people of the world unite!!!! Mwa huhh haa * best Dr evil laugh

 

Reliving the lies. Paul Erlich and the population bomb.

Paul Erlich got his PhD at the university of Kansas in zoology. His doctoral thesis was on butterflies. Climate scientist?

He predicted starvation in affluent countries like England and the USA to happen decades ago but he has changed his tune since. Now he is a climate justice liar who admits there are enough resources in the world they are just not being distributed well enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/26/world-population-resources-paul-ehrlich

Look how the guardian describes a man who has been wrong about anything he has ever written or said.

"Renowned"

Look how this "renowned" pos referred to people as garbage.

 

We are brilliant!

 

Interesting, but doesn't include things like the fact that the Colorado River is now an endangered waterway.

"Worst drought in over 1,000 years" according to Arizona:

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/18/1112...-drought-in-over-a-thousand-years-with-a-new-

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/18/us/west-water-cuts-lake-mead-colorado-river-climate/index.html

Lake Mead has lost nearly half of it's volume.

https://gazette.com/news/fire-envir...cle_64f027ee-f344-11ec-ac2b-27b6213da21e.html

Yet, we continue to build tens of thousands of new homes in the regions of the Southwest that use the Colorado River as their water source. I respect Pielke, but just because there have been droughts in the distant past doesn't mean that today's droughts, the worst in recorded history for many places around the world, aren't accelerated by human activity-related global warming.

A question for you (or anyone who wants to answer): Since so many were outraged at the demise of the Keystone Pipeline project, complaining at least in part about the loss of jobs, why don't those same outraged people pester their congress critters to put thousands of Americans to work on water pipelines from the Mississippi River flood basins out to the west coast?

 

How is it ad hominem? Nonsense in what way? Your "expert" is a known shill for Big Oil. I don't trust anyone who is getting paid by the very industry that is profiting from our use of the toxic substances that are at the root of the problem. Why do you?

He's in a tiny minority of climate scientists, over 97% of whom are in independent agreement with the fact that human activity is causing global warming. Sorry, but I'm going to go with the majority here.

 

Yes. See #120.

 

Very snarky. See #120.

If you can put your trust in the very few "experts" who are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet, goody for you. I'm going with the vast majority of the tens of thousands of scientists in the dozens of disciplines involved in climate science.

This isn't about me or my ego, but it does seem to be about yours, otherwise why such a nasty reply?

 

1. Headlines are not science. Fact is the current drought is a normal cyclical phenomenon.
2. Mrs. Hays and I decided not to retire to the SW in large part because there are already more people there than water supply can support.
3. Jobs were never primary for Keystone; we needed and still need the fuel.
4. Midwest water to the western desert? We shall see.

 

Lindzen's fee was not out of line with modest consulting income earned by many, many academics, and represents a tiny fraction of his income. The attack against him is a political smear.

 

But you'll swoon in ecstasy for the pronouncement of "experts" working for "one world government", e.g. WEF.

That 97%% mantra has been disproved many times.

Looking at plots of climate data over extended periods defines no drastic changes - the only "alarming" data seems to come from the output of numerous computer models that fail to replicate historical reality.: