[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
16764
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Those 11,000 “scientists” actually just random people, investigation r
|
Those 11,000 “scientists” warning about an impending “climate emergency” are just “11,000 random people,” investigation reveals Scientific “consensus” is a popular buzzword commonly used by climate fanatics to “prove” that man-made climate change is a real thing. But is there really even a consensus as these hysterics claim? Not even close. As it turns out, the climate lobby loves to pull its “facts” right out of thin air, including the newly minted fiction that “More than 11,000 scientists declare ‘climate emergency.'” While this regurgitated mainstream media headline is pretty cut and dry, the claim it makes is patently false, we’ve now learned. Just like the Greta Thunberg hoax, the notion that more than 11,000 actual scientists are suddenly lamenting an impending “climate emergency” has absolutely no basis in reality. In truth, these 11,000 “scientists” are actually just 11,000 ordinary people who were duped into believing that cow farts are destroying the planet, and subsequently responded by signing their names on some website. According to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, some “buddies” of his over at the group Power Line were the first to discover that these 11,000 so-called “scientists” aren’t actually scientists at all, despite what fake news media outlets like NBC, CNN, The Guardian, and Al-Jazeera continue to claim. “There was no study; there was just a press release,” Limbaugh explained on his program. “And it wasn’t 11,000 scientists; it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a website. This was a total managed lie. There was no study. There were no scientists.” In other words, the whole thing was contrived out of nowhere to push the lie that scientists have somehow reached a “consensus” about a so-called “climate emergency” that, in truth, doesn’t actually exist. “People went on a Web page and asked others reading it to put their signature on it. That was then presented as a scientific paper,” Limbaugh went on to explain. “It’s kind of like these two skeletons that put together Center for Science in the Public Interest that banned coconut oil, MSG. They weren’t scientists. They were just a couple people that didn’t want you to eat what you wanted so they created an icon, got a fax machine, got the media going. It was all made-up stuff.” For more related news about the climate change hoax, be sure to check out Climate.news. Facts: Coconut oil is healthy for you, and there is no “climate emergency” Limbaugh brings up a good point about that whole coconut oil fiasco, which as you may recall similarly involved “scientists” vilifying this healthy fat as “dangerous” in order to push their own agenda. Just like with climate change, the excuse of scientific “consensus” was used as evidence to falsely declare coconut oil as a public health menace. It’s really important that people recognize what’s going on here with all of this, as “consensus” is what’s being used on multiple fronts to eliminate Americans’ freedoms and liberties. In the case of the coconut oil fiasco, it’s about driving the public to consume unhealthy industrial chemicals instead of natural healing fats. In the case of climate change, it’s about micromanaging people’s lives down to the foods they choose to serve their families for dinner. If the climate fanatics are successful – and they openly admit their scheme, including in this climate “study” that was endorsed by 11,000 “random people” – humans will no longer be allowed to eat meat. Everything in your meal regimen will need to be “plant-based.” You won’t be able to drive a gas- powered vehicle anymore. And most of your earnings will end up being stolen from you to pay for “carbon credits.” “On the other hand, 31,500 climate and related fields scientists wrote and SIGNED their names to THEIR climate report to the UN’s IPCC, which REFUTED the IPCC and AGW religious fanatics, in 2012,” noted on WND commenter about how there’s actually a scientific consensus against the notion of man-made climate change. |
Responses:
[16767] [16768] [16769] [16770] [16771] [16772] [16773] [16774] [16778] [16766] [16775] [16776] [16777] [16765]
16767
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: surprisingly this isn't completely wrong
|
Knowing Logan and his sources I was skeptical... but it turns out they aren't completely wrong on this one. There was no scientific paper behind the headlines. It was just an opinion piece published in BioScience. No peer review, just an opinion piece. And what really surprised me was that there were no 11,000 scientists. They have published the names of more than 11,000 people... but a large number of them were students, post-docs or researchers. There were a fairly large number who were IT people, engineers, astronomers and other assorted things that seem to have to relation to climate. While they do published the 11,000 plus names they don't explain their methodology which seems odd. The opinion piece had a strict embargo date of 11/5/2019 yet it seems to have circulated at universities if these 11,000 plus people are supposed to have read it and agreed with it. Or did they simply put out an online ad saying 'if you agree there is a climate emergency sign here?' I can't tell.... they don't explain. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
[16768] [16769] [16770] [16771] [16772] [16773] [16774] [16778]
16768
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: surprisingly this isn't completely wrong
|
"List of 11,258 original scientist signatories (minus 166 invalid names, now totaling 11,092 signatories):" 166 'Micky Mouse' names removed I wouldn't expet Logan to read BioScience Magazine.... https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu We invite all scientists to sign a short article on climate change If you are a scientist, we invite you to sign our Viewpoint article “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” by Ripple et al., which was recently published in BioScience Magazine. We welcome signatures of scientists from any scientific discipline, including graduate students in the sciences. Before signing, we ask that you view this short article by clicking the “Read the Article” tab below (the main text can be read in < 8 minutes), or read the condensed version directly below. When you click “sign the article” and add your name, you will be indicating that you generally agree with our article, helping get this message to world leaders. Note that signatories speak on their own behalf and not on behalf of their affiliated institutions. It may not be possible to sign the article using Internet Explorer, but other web browsers seem to be working. New signatures may take several weeks to appear in the list of signatories because each name will first need to be validated. World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency (Condensed Version) William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, William R. Moomaw, xxxxx scientist signatories from xxx countries We scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat. In this paper, we present a suite of graphical vital signs of climate change over the last 40 years. Results show greenhouse gas emissions are still rising, with increasingly damaging effects. With few exceptions, we are largely failing to address this predicament. The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than many scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity. We suggest six critical and interrelated steps that governments and the rest of humanity can take to lessen the worst effects of climate change, covering 1) Energy, 2) Short- lived pollutants, 3) Nature, 4) Food, 5) Economy, and 6) Population. Mitigating and adapting to climate change entails transformations in the ways we govern, manage, feed, and fulfill material and energy requirements. We are encouraged by a recent global surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. The Pope issued an encyclical on climate change. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change. As scientists, we urge widespread use of our vital signs and anticipate that graphical indicators will better allow policymakers and the public to understand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities to alleviate climate change. The good news is that such transformative change, with social and ecological justice, promises greater human wellbeing in the long-run than business as usual. We believe that prospects will be greatest if policy makers and the rest of humanity promptly respond to our warning and declaration of a climate emergency, and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home. |
Responses:
[16769] [16770] [16771] [16772] [16773] [16774] [16778]
16769
From: JTRIV , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: surprisingly this isn't completely wrong
|
Hi Alan, So how was this communicated? It seems a bit odd they have few well known names in the climate science community and unusual people signed on such as the chief curator at the National Museum of Namibia, a retired chemist from South Africa and students from universities all over the planet? Cheers Jim |
16770
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: surprisingly this isn't completely wrong
URL: All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on Climate Change
|
Probably website links commuciated via channels used by scientific minded folk like email, university infra-nets, forums, social media etc. Not just Greta, scientists and hippies concerned about climate change. Funnily enough Trump calling for miliitay intervention at the border, is just the beginning with Climate change beginning to bite in Central America... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/climate-change-is-killing-crops-in-honduras-and-driving-farmers-north If the US military is facing up to the climate crisis, shouldn't we all? Pentagon officials view climate breakdown as an existential threat to human society – and are already taking action We have heard from the scientists on climate change, with their meticulous data on ecosystem degradation and species loss. We have heard from the climate deniers, with their desperate attempts to deploy countervailing arguments. Both groups have mobilized substantial blocs of voters in pivotal countries, producing gridlock in global efforts to slow the pace of global warming. It is time, then, to hear from another group of informed and influential professionals: senior military officers. Military leaders have not said much in public about global warming, in part because they’re reluctant to become involved in partisan political issues (as climate has become) and partly because top government officials— in the United States, at least—have actively discouraged such involvement. Nevertheless, senior officers are fully aware of warming’s deleterious effects and have devised a thorough analysis of its strategic implications. As I demonstrate in my new book, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change, senior American officers believe that global warming is already threatening the survival of many poor, resource- deprived countries and poses a significant risk to even the wealthiest of nations. “Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water,” the Department of Defense (DoD) told Congress in a 2015 memorandum. “These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time.” In this, and other Pentagon documents, senior officials have identified three main pathways by which climate change is likely to endanger American security: by increasing the level of conflict and chaos abroad; by exposing the homeland to ever more destructive climate effects; and by obstructing the military’s capacity to carry out its assigned missions. As global temperatures rise, Pentagon officials fear, essential resources will dwindle in many poor and divided countries, provoking conflict among internal factions and threatening the survival of fragile governments. In this chaotic environment, terrorist groups will flourish while dispossessed farmers will migrate in search of jobs—typically encountering hostility wherever they go. All this instability, the generals fear, will result in deadly pandemics, incessant warfare, and a relentless call on the United States to provide humanitarian relief and troop support. Equally worrisome, in the generals’ view, is the likelihood that climate change will cause grave harm to the homeland. The nation’s East and Gulf Coasts are highly exposed to powerful hurricanes while its West and Southwest are vulnerable to prolonged droughts and forest fires. To make matters worse, scientists fear that extreme events of this sort will increasingly occur in clusters, with one disaster following immediately after another—much as Hurricanes Irma and Maria followed Harvey in August-September 2017. For the US military, the prospect of an increasing frequency of storm clusters is deeply troubling, as the armed forces will repeatedly be called upon to assist local authorities in providing relief services, diverting them from other core responsibilities. “More frequent and/or more severe extreme weather events,” the Pentagon affirmed, “may require substantial involvement of DoD units, personnel, and assets in” future relief operations. This will be made all the more challenging by the prospect of climate-related threats to the military’s own mobilization capabilities. The same storms that devastated much of the southeast in 2017 also battered numerous bases, resulting in the mandatory evacuation of most personnel. A similar predicament arose in 2018, when Hurricanes Florence and Michael produced severe damage to several key installations in Florida and the Carolinas. All this leads to what might be called an “all hell breaking loose” scenario—a situation in which key US allies are begging for American troop support to avert collapse while the homeland is reeling from several major climate disasters and vital military installations are incapacitated by storms or wildfires. For the US military, this would pose an existential threat, preventing it from carrying out its fundamental mission of defending the nation. To overcome this peril, the armed forces have undertaken a wide range of initiatives to enhance their capacity to resist warming’s harsh effects and to reduce their own contributions to climate change. These have included, for example, the construction of sea walls at low-lying coastal bases and major investments in renewable energy. They have also partnered with the militaries of other countries to undertake similar initiatives. There is much that all of us—environmentalists, denialists, and ordinary citizens—can learn from this prognosis. To begin with, it appears that we should be paying greater attention to how human societies will be imperiled by warming’s harsh effects and perhaps less to the plight of natural habitats; both are important, but our ability to survive future climate calamities will depend most of all on the resiliency of human institutions. Likewise, for denialists, it is evident that the time for dispassionate scientific discussion has passed and that climate change is already causing mortal harm to the nations they claim to cherish. Finally, for the rest of us, it should become evident that climate change will come in time to supersede all other threats to national security, requiring an even greater popular response than that now devoted to other, more familiar threats. Like the military, we will have to build strong barriers to rising seas and other climate perils, take major steps to reduce our carbon emissions, and, most importantly, collaborate with other states to advance these efforts on a global scale. |
16771
From: JTRIV , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: surprisingly this isn't completely wrong
|
Hi Alan, So does this mean you agree it wasn’t 11,000 scientists who signed that petition? It was just 11,000 plus people responding to some online ad? Cheers Jim |
16772
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: surprisingly this isn't completely wrong
| Unless somehow scientists aren't people... ;-) |
16773
From: JTRIV , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: surprisingly this isn't completely wrong
|
Hi Alan, The point is while the press releases trumpet more than 11,000 scientists while it seems to have been just random people, scientists, students, astronomers, IT folks, etc. Don’t get me wrong, climate change is real and serious. This opinion piece was right is many respects. But they over hyped their opinion piece with 11,000 plus random people. And that is where Logan’s article wasn’t wrong. Cheers Jim |
16774
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Perhaps a better way of phrasing your question:
|
"Would you agree that not all of the people who signed the piece were climate-scientists or among those expected to have in-depth knowledge of the field?" Problem is in this case the term "scientist" was used very broadly and vaguely. A neurologist could be considered a scientist but might have no knowledge whatsoever on climate change. And students in the sciences do often consider themselves "scientists." At least, it looks pretty obvious to me like this is one of the points you're trying to make to Alan/Nasirah but correct me if I'm wrong. :-) |
Responses:
[16778]
16778
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Perhaps a better way of phrasing your question:
|
Hi Awen, Yes, that is a good way to phrase it. That is why I said Logan's article isn't completely wrong. I think it would be generous to call many of them scientists... but that was done to make it seem like there was overwhelming support in the scientific community. Cheers Jim |
Responses:
None
16766
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Those 11,000 “scientists” actually just random people,...
|
Let me guess Logan - Natural News - debunked conspiracy & fake news website World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency BioScience, biz088, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088 Published: 05 November 2019 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806 Supplemental File S1 for the article “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” published in BioScience by William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, and William R. Moomaw. Contents: List of countries with scientist signatories (page 1); List of scientist signatories (pages 1-319). List of 153 countries with scientist signatories: Albania; Algeria; American Samoa; Andorra; Argentina; Australia; Austria; Bahamas (the); Bangladesh; Barbados; Belarus; Belgium; Belize; Benin; Bolivia (Plurinational State of); Botswana; Brazil; Brunei Darussalam; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Cayman Islands (the); Chad; Chile; China; Colombia; Congo (the Democratic Republic of the); Congo (the); Costa Rica; Côte d’Ivoire; Croatia; Cuba; Curaçao; Cyprus; Czech Republic (the); Denmark; Dominican Republic (the); Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Estonia; Ethiopia; Faroe Islands (the); Fiji; Finland; France; French Guiana; French Polynesia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Greece; Guam; Guatemala; Guyana; Honduras; Hong Kong; Hungary; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Iran (Islamic Republic of); Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Jersey; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea (the Republic of); Lao People’s Democratic Republic (the); Latvia; Lebanon; Lesotho; Liberia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, Republic of (the former Yugoslavia); Madagascar; Malawi; Malaysia; Mali; Malta; Martinique; Mauritius; Mexico; Micronesia (Federated States of); Moldova (the Republic of); Morocco; Mozambique; Namibia; Nepal; Netherlands (the); New Caledonia; New Zealand; Nigeria; Northern Mariana Islands (the); Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines (the); Poland; Portugal; Puerto Rico; Qatar; Réunion; Romania; Russian Federation (the); Rwanda; São Tomé and Príncipe; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Serbia; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Slovakia; Slovenia; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan (the); Suriname; Sweden; Switzerland; Taiwan; Tanzania, United Republic of; Thailand; Togo; Tunisia; Turkey; Turks and Caicos Islands (the); Uganda; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates (the); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the); United States of America (the); Uruguay; Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); Viet Nam; Virgin Islands (U.S.); Wallis and Futuna; Zambia; Zimbabwe. List of 11,258 original scientist signatories (minus 166 invalid names, now totaling 11,092 signatories): PDF Download at link with signatures |
16775
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Bad link
|
This is what I get when clicking: "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below. MissingKeyMissing Key-Pair-Id query parameter or cookie value |
16776
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Bad link
URL: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
|
Scroll down to> Supplemental material A list of the signatories appears in supplemental file S1. and click link for the PDF |
Responses:
[16777]
16777
From: Awen, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Thanks!
| I appreciate it. |
Responses:
None
16765
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Natural News (most discredited site on the web)
|
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy- Pseudoscience sources. Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet. Detailed Report Factual Reporting: LOW Country: USA World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180 History Founded in 2005, Natural News is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website that routinely publishes false information. The founder is Mike Adams, who owns several Questionable websites such as News Target and Trump.news. Natural News has been blocked by Google and several others over the course of its history. Funded by / Ownership Natural News is owned by Mike Adams, who owns numerous other fake and or controversial websites. The website, like all of Mike Adams properties are funded through online advertising. Analysis / Bias In review, Mike Adams is known as the Health Ranger according to Rationalwiki. However, they point out dozens of cases where his claims are false. Besides promoting pseudoscience, Natural News is an extreme right wing biased source that frequently promotes Donald Trump propaganda such as these: President Trump has a constitutional MANDATE to use the military to protect our southern border – Richard Sacks. This article is sourced to Natural News and Brighteon News, which we have never heard of. In this conspiracy story, there is zero evidence and hence why it is a conspiracy: CONFIRMED: Barack Obama was running the entire spygate operation that violated federal law to spy on Trump.campaign officials. In general, politically, all stories favor the right and promote pseudoscience such as chemtrails, the Sandy Hook shooting being a false flag: Sandy Hook: mind-control flicker effect. Lastly, this source denies the consensus on climate change without evidence as seen here: Climate change cultists are now taking over your local weather forecast. A factual search reveals that Natural News has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet. (7/21/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 3/02/2019) Source: https://www.naturalnews.com/ |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]