INNHOLD Del 2:
11. The Great Global Warming Swindle-filmen
10. KLIMALØGNMAKERNES-TAKTIKKER, JUNK SCIENCE OG TÅKELEGGINGS-MANØVERE FORKLART
Never underestimate the idiocy of some people. Recent research has found that if someone is a flat-earther, a birther, a 9/11 truther or any of a dozen other nonsense conspiracy theories, then they are very likely to be climate change deniers as well. Conspiracy ideation is self-healing; everything becomes evidence for the false belief due to the warped way their minds work.
La oss se på de 0,5-1% som ikke tror på AGW til tross for alle bevisene. La oss se på den enorme mengden med junk science og politisk propaganda som de produserer. La oss se på løgnene, de falske ekspertene og autoritetspersonene og konspiraen som de må skape for å etablere sin alternative virkelighet. Som de har til felles med kreasjonister og Flat Earthers. Klimatåkeleggerne har to hoved-agendaer; 1. Å frifinne menneskeskapt CO2 som hovedårsaken til klimaendringene og 2. Undergrave IPPC og angripe/sverte sentrale klimaforskere og organisasjoner som NASA og NOAA. Motstanden mot AGW dreier seg ikke om sannhetssøken om miljø og klima, men om religion, ideologi, egeninteresser og konspira.
Nesten alt som finnes av motargumenter til teorien om at mennesker nå bidrar mest til klimaendringer er egentlig fossil-brensel industri-selv-interesse-propaganda kamuflert som ideologi og politikk:
Det hysteriske, paranoide konspiratoriske og desperate falske "oss mot dem" høyreskrudde konservative ideologiske anti-regjering anti-regulerings budskapet med sine obligatoriske og forutsigbare angrep på uønsket (klima)vitenskap og brysom konkurrerende grønn energi, filtrert gjennom tankesmier, resirkulert av ekkokammer-blogger, amatørfornektere og nettroll, er egentlig kun er en urinstråle av kynisk fossil-brensel industri-egeninteresse-PROPAGANDA, kamuflert som en politisk høyre/venstre kamp som liksom handler om "folket på gata". Tobakksindustrien brukte nøyaktig samme taktikk for 50-70 år siden.
Det respekterte tidsskriftet Nature forklarer de motstridende interessene slik:
"Klimaskeptikerne ønsker å framstille debatten som en forskningsdebatt, mens den i virkeligheten er et voldsomt sammenstøt mellom ulike måter å se verden på. Mens klimaforskernes motiv er å frambringe ny kunnskap for å fylle kunnskapshull, er klimaskeptikerne svært fornøyd med at det finnes kunnskapshull, og holder liv i dem lenge etter at de også er fylt."
Hold deg i venstre kjørefelt. Skeptikerne har en lei tendens til å rote seg bort i høyre kolonne. Og veldig ofte i nedre høyre hjørne og det røde feltet.
(Klimafornektere greier bare ikke å forstå at blogger og underholdningskanalen YouTube IKKE er vitenskap.)
Klimatåkeleggerne klarer heller aldri å skille mellom regional og global og mellom vær og klima. Du vil finne tusenvis av tilfeller der en regional graf blir brukt til å "motbevise" global oppvarming.
Få, om noen av klimafornekter-tåkeleggerne kommer med noe annet enn synsing og føleri. Av den enkle grunn at det de har å komme med ikke holder mål -og eller- ikke oppfyller kravene til Den Vitenskapelige Metode.
Det er påfallende at disse følelsene kun spres gjennom blogger og YouTube og i ekkokamre i tvilsomme Facebook-grupper. Aldri som etterprøvbar vitenskap gjennom akademiske kretser, i samtale med andre forskere eller gjennom fagfellevurderte artikler i seriøse publikasjoner, magasiner eller tidskrifter. Hvorfor? Fordi dataene deres tåler ikke en kritisk vurdering eller faktasjekk.(Det er til blogger at klimaskeptikere går for å finne likesinnede og for å få sine følelser og meninger bekreftet. Vitenskapen bak klima betyr lite eller ingenting.)
Denne herlige bloggposten debunker mange av fornektertaktikkene:
https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/05/23/anti-vaccers-climate-change-deniers-and-anti-gmo-activists-are-all-the-same/
All kunnskap skal være etterprøvbar, derfor står publisering sentralt innen forskningen. Et krav i klimadebatten bør således være at den skjer på bakgrunn av publisert materiale i vitenskapelige anerkjente tidsskrifter.
Når klimafornektere bruker begrep som f.eks "mye forskning viser", da viser de bare til den dråpen i havet av studier som støtter deres syn, samtidig som de overser over 100 år med klimavitenskap og det faktum at det ikke finnes en eneste vitenskapelig institusjon i verden som støtter deres syn. Klimafornekterne vil hevde at "mye" forskning viser ditt og datt, men dette er studier som allerede har blitt vurdert opp mot den eksisterende klimavitenskapen -og blitt avvist. Dette forhindrer ikke fornektere å reposte disse studiene for å tåkelegge.
Klimaskeptikere "produserer" ikke nye bevis for å forbedre den eksisterende klimavitenskapen. I stedet søker de etter feil i andres forskning og tåkelegger klimasaken for å så tvil. Du finner ikke klimaskeptisk "vitenskap" innenfor den seriøse vitenskapen av samme grunn som du ikke finner kreasjonist-"vitenskap eller flat-jord-"vitenskap" der. Klimafornekterne er praktisk talt bingospillere.
Amatørfornekternes selvmotsigelser er et studie i seg selv, og viser bare hvor uenige og irrasjonelle og desperate de er. Her er noen smakebiter:
Mange fornektere har dessuten en overdreven tro på egne kunnskaper og burde nok sjekket ut Dunning-Kruger-effekten: Mennesker har en tendens til å ha et overdrevet syn på egne evner på mange sosiale og intellektuelle områder. Dunning og Kruger mener at dette skyldes delvis at personer som er inkompetente på disse områdene også mangler metakognitive ferdigheter til å forstå at de er sosialt og intellektuelt inkompetente.
Mistroen til fag-eksperter (som ikke støtter fornekternes syn) er og et økende problem.
All kunnskap skal være etterprøvbar, derfor står publisering sentralt innen forskningen. Et krav i klimadebatten bør således være at den skjer på bakgrunn av publisert materiale i vitenskapelige anerkjente tidsskrifter.
Når klimafornektere bruker begrep som f.eks "mye forskning viser", da viser de bare til den dråpen i havet av studier som støtter deres syn, samtidig som de overser over 100 år med klimavitenskap og det faktum at det ikke finnes en eneste vitenskapelig institusjon i verden som støtter deres syn. Klimafornekterne vil hevde at "mye" forskning viser ditt og datt, men dette er studier som allerede har blitt vurdert opp mot den eksisterende klimavitenskapen -og blitt avvist. Dette forhindrer ikke fornektere å reposte disse studiene for å tåkelegge.
Klimaskeptikere "produserer" ikke nye bevis for å forbedre den eksisterende klimavitenskapen. I stedet søker de etter feil i andres forskning og tåkelegger klimasaken for å så tvil. Du finner ikke klimaskeptisk "vitenskap" innenfor den seriøse vitenskapen av samme grunn som du ikke finner kreasjonist-"vitenskap eller flat-jord-"vitenskap" der. Klimafornekterne er praktisk talt bingospillere.
Amatørfornekternes selvmotsigelser er et studie i seg selv, og viser bare hvor uenige og irrasjonelle og desperate de er. Her er noen smakebiter:
Mange fornektere har dessuten en overdreven tro på egne kunnskaper og burde nok sjekket ut Dunning-Kruger-effekten: Mennesker har en tendens til å ha et overdrevet syn på egne evner på mange sosiale og intellektuelle områder. Dunning og Kruger mener at dette skyldes delvis at personer som er inkompetente på disse områdene også mangler metakognitive ferdigheter til å forstå at de er sosialt og intellektuelt inkompetente.
Mistroen til fag-eksperter (som ikke støtter fornekternes syn) er og et økende problem.
“The culture and our educational system have created a generation that has little experience being told they are objectively wrong. Everyone feels they are entitled to be right. Combine this with the illusion of knowledge provided by Google, and everyone thinks they are their own expert in anything.”
Journalisten Charles P. Pierce, som har skrevet bestselgeren Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free beskriver det slik:"
The rise of idiot America today represents - for profit mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage in the pursuit of power - the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about. In the new media age, everybody is an expert."
Videre: Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason and anti-science have been infused into America's political and social fabric.
“The culture and our educational system have created a generation that has little experience being told they are objectively wrong. Everyone feels they are entitled to be right. Combine this with the illusion of knowledge provided by Google, and everyone thinks they are their own expert in anything.”
Journalisten Charles P. Pierce, som har skrevet bestselgeren Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free beskriver det slik:"
The rise of idiot America today represents - for profit mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage in the pursuit of power - the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about. In the new media age, everybody is an expert."
Videre: Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason and anti-science have been infused into America's political and social fabric.
HVORDAN DEN "PROFESJONELLE" FORNEKTERINDUSTRIEN OG DERES NYTTIGE AMATØRER ANGRIPER KLIMAVITENSKAPEN
Hele bøtteballetten av klimaløgnmakere står alltid klar til å angripe Fns klimapanels rapporter og andre nyheter fra de ekte klimaforskerne. Stigmatisert kunnskap, løgner, myter og gamle (blogg)-argumenter - som aldri har vært gjennom Den Vitenskapelige Metode eller blitt publisert i et seriøst forum/magasin/tidsskrift - resirkuleres stadig, mens motsvar i form av oppdatert vitenskap fra seriøse kilder skal druknes i støyen eller - i god konspira-ånd - erklæres korrupte. Noen sjeldne ganger brukes det fagfellevurderte rapporter, men da som regel i feil og misbrukt sammenheng. Dette mønsteret går igjen. Det brukes retoriske taktikker for å gi inntrykk av at det er balanse eller legitim debatt, når det i virkeligheten er ingen.
De fleste løgnspredernes argumenter inkluderer derfor alltid: konspira, selektivt utvalg, sitatjuks, falske eksperter, blank løgn, altfor høye krav til vitenskapen om klima (klima er ikke så forutsigbart som f.eks matematikk), logiske brister eller ufarliggjøring av global oppvarming. (Warming is good for us).
Først har du de "profesjonelle", betalte klimaskeptikerne, som lager klimaløgner og junk science om klima, og som egentlig vet at mennesker bidrar til global oppvarming. Disse er sponset av tankesmier som igjen er sponset av oljeindustrien (mer om dette senere). Disse får betalt for å tåkelegge og så tvil. Disse setter så opp ekkokammer-blogger som f.eks ClimateDepot, WhatsUpWithThat og joannenova.com.au/ der "amatørene" kan komme og få bekreftet, diskutert og spredd sine bekreftelses-tendenser.
Klimabloggen The Dake Page beskriver dette så utrolig presist:
Klimabloggen The Dake Page beskriver dette så utrolig presist:
"Once the professional denial lobby has seeded the internet via their paid bloggers (e.g., Climate Depot, WUWT, etc.), they rely on the amateur deniers to saturate the blogosphere with every sciencey-sounding, but already debunked, misinformational tidbit. Actual science by NOAA, NASA, the IPCC, and every other scientific organization is dismissed as "unreliable," while a blog post by some non-scientist with his pet conspiracy theory is taken as gospel. [...]The combined information of nearly every climate scientist, every climate science organization, every National Academy of Science in the world, a hundred thousand peer-reviewed scientific studies, more than a century of research, millions of data points, and the realities of basic physics can all be washed away by an anonymous blogger posting easily debunked misinformation on a blog by a non-scientist receiving funding by lobbyists."
"Denialists know that they have no valid scientific argument; if they did they would present it in scientific journals, conferences, and debates. Their goal isn’t to demonstrate science, it is to manipulate public opinion. That is what lobbyists do, and they do it well. Their goal is to create the illusion of debate, the façade of uncertainty. By continuing the “discussion,” such as it is, in the media, they win. They know that a majority of the public won't understand the intricacies of the science, either by choice or by its complexity. Denialists know that the public will get an overall sense of whether the science is settled or not, and that it is on this vague feeling the public will make judgments as to whether immediate action is needed. Perception is more important than fact, and illusion of reality is much more powerful than actual reality. [...] What is critical in this game is not what the science tells us, it’s the fact that to the public it appears as if there are two sides arguing with each other. Two sides + arguing = not settled.
Avhengighet av lobbykilder:
Amatør-fornektere vil uungåelig oppgi lobbyister/tankesmier som kilder i stedet for vitenskapelige kilder (forutsatt at de gidder å nevne noen kilder i det hele tatt). Amatør-fornektere har overbevist seg selv (og lobbyister har trent dem til å tro) at alle forskere er korrupte og en del av en multigenerasjonal global konspirasjon og "Al Gore!" (Amatørfornektere finner vanligvis en måte å sette inn Al Gore i diskusjonen, navnet er som en klokke til Pavlovs hunder).
Så istedenfor 100 + års vitenskap, benytter amatør-fornektere en rekke blogger finansiert, støttet og matet av lobbyister, deres frontgrupper, deres talsmenn og andre konspirasjon, svindel eller ideologisk motiverte ikke-forskere.
Hvis noen siterer WUWT, Climate Depot, Heartland, Laframboise, JoNova, og en rekke andre ikke-vitenskapelige, lobbyist-støttede propagandablogger, vet du at de ikke har giddet å bry seg om å lære seg vitenskapen. Hver og en av disse, og alle deres søsterblogger, har vist seg å være ta feil. Hver eneste gang. Hver artikkel eller post er enkel å debunke, og de fleste er bare resirkulerte eldre tråder som har blitt debunked mange, mange ganger før. Ofte er disse bloggene så hinsides feil at det er vanskelig å forstå hvordan ethvert oppegående menneske kan legge vekt på noe av det de sier. Men dette er hvem amatørene stoler på.
Samtidig avviser disse amatør-fornekterne NASA, NOAA, IPCC, NSIDC, og enhver annen vitenskapelig organisasjon som på en eller annen mystisk måte ikke er i stand til å forstå vitenskapen de har forsket og publisert i flere tiår. Og når de finner det praktisk, vil amatør-fornekterne hevde at de siterer NASA (to åndedrag etter at de kalte NASA korrupte) - med unntak av at de ikke siterer NASA direkte, de siterer gjennom en lobbyistblogg som har manipulert NASA-data og / eller laget en konklusjon som ikke er støttet av beviset og er ofte det motsatte av hva NASA faktisk sa.
Reliance on Lobbyist Sources: Invariably, amateur deniers will cite lobbyist sources instead of scientific sources (assuming they bother to cite any source at all). Amateurs have convinced themselves (and lobbyists have trained them to believe) that all scientists are corrupt and part of a multigenerational global conspiracy and "Al Gore!" (Deniers usually find a way to insert Al Gore into the discussion; the name is like a bell to Pavlov's dogs). So to replace 100+ years of science, deniers rely on a series of blogs funded, supported, and seeded by lobbyists, their front groups, their spokespeople, and other conspiracy, scam, or ideologically motivated non-scientists.
If someone is citing WUWT, Climate Depot, Heartland, Laframboise, JoNova, and a slew of other non-science, lobbyist-supported, propaganda blogs, you know they haven't bothered to learn about the science. Each of these, and all their offshoots, have been shown to be wrong. Every single time. Every article or post is easily debunked, and most are simply recycling of older talking points that have been debunked many many times before. Often these blogs are so egregiously wrong it is hard to understand how any sentient being would put any weight in anything they say. But this is who deniers rely on.
Meanwhile, these same deniers dismiss NASA, NOAA, IPCC, NSIDC, and every other scientific organization as somehow incapable of understanding the science they've been researching and publishing for decades. And yet when they find it convenient, deniers will claim they are citing NASA (two breaths after calling NASA corrupt) - except they don't really cite NASA, they cite a lobbyist blog that has manipulated NASA data and/or fabricated a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence and is often the opposite of what NASA actually said.
Denne saken forklarer veldig godt hvordan fornektere lever i sin egen alternative virkelighet.
Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
Avhengighet av lobbykilder:
Amatør-fornektere vil uungåelig oppgi lobbyister/tankesmier som kilder i stedet for vitenskapelige kilder (forutsatt at de gidder å nevne noen kilder i det hele tatt). Amatør-fornektere har overbevist seg selv (og lobbyister har trent dem til å tro) at alle forskere er korrupte og en del av en multigenerasjonal global konspirasjon og "Al Gore!" (Amatørfornektere finner vanligvis en måte å sette inn Al Gore i diskusjonen, navnet er som en klokke til Pavlovs hunder).
Så istedenfor 100 + års vitenskap, benytter amatør-fornektere en rekke blogger finansiert, støttet og matet av lobbyister, deres frontgrupper, deres talsmenn og andre konspirasjon, svindel eller ideologisk motiverte ikke-forskere.
Hvis noen siterer WUWT, Climate Depot, Heartland, Laframboise, JoNova, og en rekke andre ikke-vitenskapelige, lobbyist-støttede propagandablogger, vet du at de ikke har giddet å bry seg om å lære seg vitenskapen. Hver og en av disse, og alle deres søsterblogger, har vist seg å være ta feil. Hver eneste gang. Hver artikkel eller post er enkel å debunke, og de fleste er bare resirkulerte eldre tråder som har blitt debunked mange, mange ganger før. Ofte er disse bloggene så hinsides feil at det er vanskelig å forstå hvordan ethvert oppegående menneske kan legge vekt på noe av det de sier. Men dette er hvem amatørene stoler på.
Samtidig avviser disse amatør-fornekterne NASA, NOAA, IPCC, NSIDC, og enhver annen vitenskapelig organisasjon som på en eller annen mystisk måte ikke er i stand til å forstå vitenskapen de har forsket og publisert i flere tiår. Og når de finner det praktisk, vil amatør-fornekterne hevde at de siterer NASA (to åndedrag etter at de kalte NASA korrupte) - med unntak av at de ikke siterer NASA direkte, de siterer gjennom en lobbyistblogg som har manipulert NASA-data og / eller laget en konklusjon som ikke er støttet av beviset og er ofte det motsatte av hva NASA faktisk sa.
Reliance on Lobbyist Sources: Invariably, amateur deniers will cite lobbyist sources instead of scientific sources (assuming they bother to cite any source at all). Amateurs have convinced themselves (and lobbyists have trained them to believe) that all scientists are corrupt and part of a multigenerational global conspiracy and "Al Gore!" (Deniers usually find a way to insert Al Gore into the discussion; the name is like a bell to Pavlov's dogs). So to replace 100+ years of science, deniers rely on a series of blogs funded, supported, and seeded by lobbyists, their front groups, their spokespeople, and other conspiracy, scam, or ideologically motivated non-scientists.
If someone is citing WUWT, Climate Depot, Heartland, Laframboise, JoNova, and a slew of other non-science, lobbyist-supported, propaganda blogs, you know they haven't bothered to learn about the science. Each of these, and all their offshoots, have been shown to be wrong. Every single time. Every article or post is easily debunked, and most are simply recycling of older talking points that have been debunked many many times before. Often these blogs are so egregiously wrong it is hard to understand how any sentient being would put any weight in anything they say. But this is who deniers rely on.
Meanwhile, these same deniers dismiss NASA, NOAA, IPCC, NSIDC, and every other scientific organization as somehow incapable of understanding the science they've been researching and publishing for decades. And yet when they find it convenient, deniers will claim they are citing NASA (two breaths after calling NASA corrupt) - except they don't really cite NASA, they cite a lobbyist blog that has manipulated NASA data and/or fabricated a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence and is often the opposite of what NASA actually said.
Denne saken forklarer veldig godt hvordan fornektere lever i sin egen alternative virkelighet.
Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.
The tricks propagandists use to beat science
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610012/the-tricks-propagandists-use-to-beat-science/
New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
This concept is also illustrated through what one editor would describe as "fill-in-the-blank outrage" by Christian fundamentalists in the United States. Examples of this include fundie leaders suddenly declaring things as diverse as environmentalism, feminism, gay rights, universal health care, etc. to be threats to Christianity, unscriptural, unholy, or some other version of "wahhh" when there is no indication that Christians as a whole considered these things threatening over the nearly 2000 years of the religion's existence. Until just now, of course.
Just asking questions (also known as JAQ-ing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent — rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop.
Quote mining
is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
An argumentum ad nauseam (also known as an argument by repetition) is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. An ad nauseam argument that can be easily shown to be false leads to the "point refuted a thousand times".
Due to the modern 24 hour cable news cycle and the fact every idiot now has a blog, argumentum ad nauseam has become particularly prevalent. In politics it is usually used in the form of a talking point, which is then reduced to a three second sound bite and is repeated at every available opportunity. On the blogosphere it takes the form of a meme, where every like minded blogger repeats a statement used by a fellow blogger. Twitter, where every message has to be less than 140 characters, has only made this latter form of viral propagandaworse.
Repeating an opinion again and again seems to convince people that it is true — maybe because it simulates the effect of many people having that opinion.
Science Denialist Tactics oppsummert
Sceptical Science sin Scientific Guide to Global Warming
Her finner du forøvrig en oversikt over de 5 klimafornekterstadiene.
Denne oversikten fra 2009 - er dessverre - fremdeles aktuell all den tid klimafornektere bevisst resirkulerer slik stigmatisert kunnskap igjen og igjen. Gjentas løgnene mange nok ganger begynner folk å tro på dem, om ikke annet, pga ren utmattelse.
The tricks propagandists use to beat science
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610012/the-tricks-propagandists-use-to-beat-science/
New study uncovers the 'keystone domino' strategy of climate denial
Posted on 29 November 2017 by dana1981
The body of evidence supporting human-caused global warming is vast – too vast for climate denial blogs to attack it all. Instead they focus on what a new study published in the journal Bioscience calls “keystone dominoes.” These are individual pieces of evidence that capture peoples’ attention, like polar bears. The authors write:
These topics are used as “proxies” for AGW [human-caused global warming] in general; in other words, they represent keystone dominoes that are strategically placed in front of many hundreds of others, each representing a separate line of evidence for AGW. By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.”
The body of evidence supporting human-caused global warming is vast – too vast for climate denial blogs to attack it all. Instead they focus on what a new study published in the journal Bioscience calls “keystone dominoes.” These are individual pieces of evidence that capture peoples’ attention, like polar bears. The authors write:
These topics are used as “proxies” for AGW [human-caused global warming] in general; in other words, they represent keystone dominoes that are strategically placed in front of many hundreds of others, each representing a separate line of evidence for AGW. By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.”
DEBATT-METODER:
Her er noen av debatt-metodene til amatørklimafornekterne beskrevet:
The troll feigns ignorance and politeness, so that if the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the aggrieved party.[Sealioning can be performed by a single troll or by multiple ones acting in concert. The technique of sealioning has been compared to the Gish gallop and metaphorically described as a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.
Trollet faker uvitenhet og høflighet, slik at hvis mot-debattant blir provosert til å gi et sint svar, kan trollet spille den provoserte. Sealioning kan utføres av et enkelt troll eller av flere som opptrer sammen. Teknikken er blitt sammenlignet med Gish-galoppen og metaforisk beskrevet som et fornektelsesangrep rettet mot mennesker.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning?wprov=sfla1&fbclid=IwAR1JwCw_p9T2hF3U_7r6P8IpVj0xAvHf9gX9rhuPt3JVmWM8BtxdnXGuG3w
The troll feigns ignorance and politeness, so that if the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the aggrieved party.[Sealioning can be performed by a single troll or by multiple ones acting in concert. The technique of sealioning has been compared to the Gish gallop and metaphorically described as a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.
Trollet faker uvitenhet og høflighet, slik at hvis mot-debattant blir provosert til å gi et sint svar, kan trollet spille den provoserte. Sealioning kan utføres av et enkelt troll eller av flere som opptrer sammen. Teknikken er blitt sammenlignet med Gish-galoppen og metaforisk beskrevet som et fornektelsesangrep rettet mot mennesker.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning?wprov=sfla1&fbclid=IwAR1JwCw_p9T2hF3U_7r6P8IpVj0xAvHf9gX9rhuPt3JVmWM8BtxdnXGuG3w
A manufactroversy, also known as a nontroversy, is a manufactured controversy.
A manufactroversy can be a form of denialism: pretending that a controversy exists over something which is, in fact, not in debate by anyone who has the slightest grasp of the facts, but which a number of people wish to deny for religious, political, or other reasons. The usual motive for this is to attempt to give the appearance that the facts are still up for debate, à la anti-environmentalism. Another kind is the manufactured "scandal": blowing a non-issue out of proportion.
Often related to the "tell both sides" method of reporting, where only one side has any evidence, so the reporter searches out a crank just so they can tell another side.
Just asking questions (also known as JAQ-ing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent — rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop.
Quote mining
is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote.
Due to the modern 24 hour cable news cycle and the fact every idiot now has a blog, argumentum ad nauseam has become particularly prevalent. In politics it is usually used in the form of a talking point, which is then reduced to a three second sound bite and is repeated at every available opportunity. On the blogosphere it takes the form of a meme, where every like minded blogger repeats a statement used by a fellow blogger. Twitter, where every message has to be less than 140 characters, has only made this latter form of viral propagandaworse.
Repeating an opinion again and again seems to convince people that it is true — maybe because it simulates the effect of many people having that opinion.
Science Denialist Tactics oppsummert
Science advocates and scientific skeptics rely on the methods of scientific research, critical thinking and methodological skepticism. Science denialists, on the other hand, also have their own methods to push their misinformation and artificially inflate fear, uncertainty and doubt.
These are called denialist tactics, and range from quoting scientists out of context to make it appear as if they are saying something they are not to organized and targeted attacks on the credibility of individual scientists. Learn about denialist tactics to sharpen your ability to stop pseudoscience and quackery.
Her finner du en annen fullstendig oversikt over alle tåkeleggings-taktikkene.
Denne saken fra ScepticalScience viser hvor komisk forutsigbart klima-tåkeleggerne planlegger sine angrep.
These are called denialist tactics, and range from quoting scientists out of context to make it appear as if they are saying something they are not to organized and targeted attacks on the credibility of individual scientists. Learn about denialist tactics to sharpen your ability to stop pseudoscience and quackery.
Her finner du en annen fullstendig oversikt over alle tåkeleggings-taktikkene.
Denne saken fra ScepticalScience viser hvor komisk forutsigbart klima-tåkeleggerne planlegger sine angrep.
Sceptical Science sin Scientific Guide to Global Warming
Her finner du forøvrig en oversikt over de 5 klimafornekterstadiene.
Denne oversikten fra 2009 - er dessverre - fremdeles aktuell all den tid klimafornektere bevisst resirkulerer slik stigmatisert kunnskap igjen og igjen. Gjentas løgnene mange nok ganger begynner folk å tro på dem, om ikke annet, pga ren utmattelse.
Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, mannen bak den berømte hockey-køllen, har selv blitt angrepet av de "profesjonelle" klimafornekterne. Han forklarer her:
"When it comes to attacks on climate scientists specifically, this strategy follows a familiar script. On the eve of a critical Congressional vote, hearing, or climate policy summit, a late-breaking “scandal” suddenly erupts. Individual scientists are typically charged with claims of misconduct, fraud, or data manipulation, and soon enough, right-wing blogs, climate-denying websites, and the conservative establishment media are trumpeting the accusations. In time, more objective media outlets are forced to cover the uproar, lending it credibility and oxygen, even as it is responsibly dissected."
4 ways to resist climate change deniers.
EKKOKAMMERNE / SØPPEL-NETTSTEDENE
Dette er klimatåkeleggernes blogger der tankesmienes propaganda og junk-science på vegne av fossil-brensel-industrien iblandes følelser, ideologi og konspira før de repostes i sosiale medier.
Og det er disse bloggene de har, klima-vitenskap-fornekterne. Som sagt, det er ingen vitenskapelige institusjoner i verden som IKKE er enig i at mennesker bidrar til global oppvarming. Disse tvilsomme blogg-konspira-søppelstedene ER ALT de har - ved siden av YouTube. Og ja, disse stedene SER billige ut. I diskusjoner med fornektere går det sjelden mer enn 1 minutt før det linkes til ett av disse stedene. Her er de vanligste (verste) klimaløgnsprederne: De to første her er direkte linket til big oil/Koch-brothers. WUWT og CFACT er de "profesjonelle" klimaløgnskaperne som forer amatørene. De er trollfabrikkene!
Wattsupwiththat (WUWT) Heartland Institutes / Koch-sponsede ekkokammer. Edderkoppen i klimaløgnspreder-nettverket.
CFACT/ClimateDepot Marc Morano er en tinnfolie-hat konservativ klimafornekter som bla a har vært produsent for Rush Limbaugh! og jobbet for kreasjonist-senatoren James Infoe. Morano er en lapskaus av Fox News, Glen Beck, Alex Jones og Komiske Ali.
ClimateDepot/Marc Morano
Marc Morano (born 1968) is a wingnut propagandist and global warming denier (his fans call him a "climate realist"). He kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the early '90s.
Alt her er direkte sponset av big oil/ Koch-Brothers. Se del 4 for mer.
_______
Amatørbloggene:
NoTricksZone (Konspira, junk science, følelser etc)
The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog (Australias Heartland Institute avdeling, psuedo science, konspira, Great barrier reef-løgner, Jo Nova er en konservativ blogger som skriver bestillingsverk på vegne av big oil)
Klimarealistene (Pseudo-science, følelser, synsing, konspira, 99% er resirkulert Heartland Institute/WUWT-propaganda, anti-grønn/anti-fornybar energi, dårlig skjult Frp-propaganda. Har et gamlehjem av cranks, lider tungt av Dunning Krueger-effekten.Tror på oljeindustri-bloggere og youtube-videoer fremfor grunnleggende fysikk.
Oljekrisa.no (Konspira, truther-konspira, klimafornekting)
www.klimaforskning.com / Klimaarkivet (Konspira, myter, klipp og lim fra fornekter-blogger)
Resett, skrothøyrete/koko-høyrete amatør-propaganda-blogg med mye klimafornekting forsøkt forkledd som nettavis. Ser svært billig ut. Publiserer selv de mest elendige leserinnlegg bare de fornekter/sår tvil/forkludrer de menneskeskapte klimaendringene. Et ormebol og en svinesti av klimakonspira og løgner. Refererer til cranks og pseudo science i klimasaker. Et ekkokammer for Klimarealistene og andre som fornekter klimaendringer pga ideologiske og politiske motiver. Kommentarfeltene flommer over av uutdannede bekreftelsesfølelser om klima. Denne bloggen er norges Breitbart.
Breitbart (100% konspira, neo-nazi, white supremacy, rasisme, skrothøyre/koko-høyre etc)
https://www.iceagenow.info/sea-levels-are-falling/ (100% konspira og virkelighetsfordreining, et vepsebol av løgner og falske grafer. De såkalte syklusguttene gjørmebader naken sammen i denne svinestien av en blogg.Huff)
Seawapa.org (Klimatåkelegging, konspira)
https://climatechangedispatch.com/ (Echo chamber denier blogg, fossil fuel propaganda, junk science etc)
https://www.iceagenow.info/sea-levels-are-falling/ (100% konspira og virkelighetsfordreining, et vepsebol av løgner og falske grafer. De såkalte syklusguttene gjørmebader naken sammen i denne svinestien av en blogg.Huff)
Seawapa.org (Klimatåkelegging, konspira)
https://climatechangedispatch.com/ (Echo chamber denier blogg, fossil fuel propaganda, junk science etc)
Popular Technology.net (100% konspira og svertekampanje-blogg mot ScepticalScience.)
Principia Scientific International (konspira, anti vaxxing, junk science, denne er ille.)
NaturalNews (en av de verste koko-konspira-stedene som finnes. Her finner du og masse løgner om klima)
Iceage.now (His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof.)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists
https://www.monbiot.com/2005/05/10/junk-science/
The Dake Page bloggen går igjennom noen av tåkeleggerne :
How Climate Change Denialists Use Front Groups to Lie About the Science
Climate denialists like to argue that they are "well armed" to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. And in some respects they are, because these non-science free market lobbying groups have a long history of setting up fake front organizations and now blogger networks to saturate the public domain with intentional misinformation. They did it to deny that smoking caused cancer, that CFCs affected the ozone hole, that smokestacks in Ohio caused acid rain in New England, and that killer smogs were the result of pollution. In all cases the denialists were wrong, the scientists were right, and policy-makers finally made decisions that helped to fix the problems. In fact, some of the current climate change denialists are the very same people and lobbying groups that denied the earlier science.
Some of the recent articles here on Gather have suggested the following as sources of denialist misinformation. Too bad they aren't scientific at all.
Climate Depot: This is a blog run by Marc Morano for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a non-science free market lobbying group. This is the same Marc Morano who was James Inhofe's hit man when Inhofe was Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate (before the Democrats got the majority). Morano has zero science training of any kind. For Inhofe he compiled through Google searching a "list" of "climate skeptics" that consisted solely of blog clips, which he helped orchestrate. Besides his scam with Inhofe, Morano was the Washington attack dog for his old boss Rush Limbaugh. Morano also was the one who distributed and pushed the Swiftboating of both Senator John Kerry and Representative John Murtha, disparaging both war veterans for their service. Morano never served in the military. Despite having no science training at all, Morano is one of several hired writers listed as a "global warming expert" by Heartland Institute.
Icecap: Icecap is a blog that takes stories from other blogs and online news sources and disseminates them to their network of denialist bloggers and willing lackeys like those on Gather who further plagiarize their posts. It is run by Joseph D'Aleo, a retired TV meteorologist and the first director of meteorology at the weather channel. While he was a meteorologist and businessman, he never did any climate research (TV weather is not climate science). D'Aleo is also associated with the Heartland Institute. Icecap intentionally sets up its web page to blur the lines between stories so that it can discount anything that is actual climate science by attaching a denialist story to it. It even writes fake headlines to dismiss stories that don't support their view.
CO2 Science: This blog is basically the same disinformation blog series that keeps changing to keep ahead of its discredited stories and founders. It's run by Sherwood and Craig Idso (and another Idso or two), who are well-known for setting up fake front groups for such organizations as ExxonMobil and the Western Fuels Association. The goal of the blog is to distribute disinformation on carbon dioxide like "carbon dioxide is taken up by plants so it can't be bad in the upper atmosphere" [how many plants do you see growing in the upper atmosphere] and "global warming is good for us" [unless you live along the coasts that will be flooded, the interior areas that will become dust bowls, etc.]. Not surprisingly, Craig Idso is also associated with the Heartland Institute.
SPPI: Another front group for industry free market lobbyists. Started by Robert Ferguson, a non-scientist (with a BA in history and MA in legislative affairs) who set up SPPI after also serving as director of another front group CSSP. Both are heavily funded by ExxonMobil and associated with free market lobbying groups. Ferguson was a speaker at Heartland Institute's denialist marketing event in 2009, but is mostly known for his 26 years working for Republican congressmen on the hill. The site relies mostly on the rantings of another non-scientist, Lord Monckton, who was a former journalist and adviser to the conservative party in Britain. He has zero science background._____________
BONUS:
Kreasjonistene:
The Cornwall Alliance, kreasjonisme, klimaløgner, konspira, med i big oil nettverket
PragerU (YouTube), oljepropaganda, kreasjonist-vås, Ayn Rand skrot, koko-høyre, konservativt piss.
Global Warming Policy Foundation, ( Englands største tankesmie fornektersted, pro olje propaganda, klimaløgner/myter, direkte linket til oljeindustrien)
Friends of Science (sic) Canadas anti science wing of Heartland etc.
Skeptikeren Michael Shermer snakker her om hvordan gjenkjenne tøv:
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS VISER OSS HVORDAN KLIMALØGNENE SKAPES OG SPRES
Her er informasjon om de fremste klimatåkeleggerne. Dette er tankesmiene og lobbygruppene som skaper klimaløgnene som "amatørene" sprer videre i sine blogger og sosiale medier. Gå inn og klikk deg gjennom de 42 rullesidene for å se hvordan klimaløgnene skapes.
An overwhelming majority of scientists agree — global warming is happening and human activity is the primary cause. Yet several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming.
These organizations play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas — even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet.
Å LESE IPPC SINE RAPPORTER SOM "FANDEN LESER BIBELEN"
FN Klimapanels rapporter kan være ganske rotete og uoversiktlige. Det er mye tekst og språk og begreper som kan være vanskelige å forstå. Det er delrapporter, hovedrapporter og oppsummeringer.
I artikkelen fra Forbes, for å nedgradere menneskers innflytelse på klimaendringer, velger Mario Loyola, snodig nok, ut dette sitatet: ("On the link between human activity and climate change, the IPCC has this to say):
Setningen er fra Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Og ikke overraskende, den blir fullstendig misbrukt og tatt ut av sammenhengen. Hvis han hadde lest og forstått rapporten, ville han visst at hans utvalgte sitat om overflatetemperatur handler nettopp bare om det, overflatetemperatur, som ikke inkluderer oppvarming av havene - som absorberer 90% av overskuddsenergien som varmer opp kloden - eller noen av de andre faktorene. I jakten på et IPCC-sitat som støtter hans oppfatning overså Loyola alle setningene og konklusjonene som er basert på HELE klimasystemet, ikke bare overflatetemperaturene. Hvorfor valgte han ikke ut konklusjonen som omfatter alle faktorene mon tro? Her er den:
Denne uærligheten går igjen. Du vil finne hundrevis av lignende sitatjuks i klimaløgn-fornekterverden. (Se flere eksempler i avsnittet om Klimarealistene i Del 3)
SITAT-JUKS
Her er det så mye å ta av at vi av plasshensyn tar for oss ett av de mest kjente:
Her ser vi hvordan ord har blitt klippet ut og deretter limt sammen for å gi en helt ny mening. Klimafornektere prøver her å få det til å fremstå som at "Vi" i sitatet er IPPC. At IPPC har en slags hemmelig agenda og en tilsynelatende enorm politisk makt til å styre verdens klimapolitikk i en bestemt retning. Ja, det hadde jo vært gale det, hvis det var sant. Men det er jo ikke dette sitatet handler om.
Her er deler av orginalintervjuet oversatt til engelsk med markeringer i henhold til den egentlige kontekst:
(NZZ AM SONNTAG) All this no longer sounds like the climate policy we know.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG) All this no longer sounds like the climate policy we know.
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG) Nevertheless, the environment suffers from climate change - especially in the south.(EDENHOFER) There will also be much to do with the adjustment. But this goes far beyond classical development policy: we will see a decline in agricultural yields in Africa with climate change. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of the production is increased - and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the world economy. But then we have to see that successful climate policy needs a different global trade and financial policy.
__________________
Så hva er det det Edenhofer egentlig snakker om?
Det sitatet/intervjuet handler om er hvilke konsekvenser en mer rettferdig fordeling av naturressursene på jorden vil få for diverse aktører og land. Hvilke konsekvenser reduksjon i klimagasser vil få.
Han påpeker hvordan utviklingsland har blitt utnyttet og at denne skjevheten bør utjevnes:
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this.
Så påpeker han at klimapolitikk dessverre bare handler om å tilrettelegge for de utviklede landene til å utnytte verdens naturressurser og at vi må
"free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy"
og at det
"has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
Dette handler altså at det er tatt for lite hensyn til miljøet i et historisk perspektiv. Og at det er på tide å gjøre noe med dette:
"we have to see that successful climate policy needs a different global trade and financial policy. "
Mange av verdens største oljeselskaper støtter forresten teorien om menneskeskapt global oppvarming og er OK med karbonskatter og er allerede godt igang med å skifte fra fossilt brensel til fornybar energi. Les mer om dette her.
____________________________________
The meme is a bad misrepresentation of the interview. It turns everything he says upside down.
WHAT HE SAYS IS THIS:
WE (THE DEVELOPED WORLD),
HAVE REDISTRIBUTED THE WORLDS WEALTH BY FACILITATING THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO EXPLOIT THE WORLDS NATURAL RESOURCES.
The quote / interview is about what consequences a more equitable distribution of natural resources on earth will have for various actors and countries. What consequences reductions in greenhouse gases will have.
The "we" he talks about is not he IPCC, its the humans of the planet and how we always have exploited the resources of the third world for our own greed.
He points out how developing countries have been exploited and that this bias should be leveled out:
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. (Because their gain is other peoples pollution).
Then he points out that we must "free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy" because climate policy unfortunately is only about facilitating the developed countries to exploit the world's natural resources.
and because of that, it
"has almost nothing to do with real environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
This means that too little consideration has been given to the environment in a historical perspective.
And that it's time to do something about this:
"we have to see that climate policy needs a different global trade and financial policy."
Many of the world's largest oil companies, by the way, support the theory of man-made global warming and are OK with carbon taxes and are already well underway to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
HOW DENIERS USE FAKE GRAPHS TO SUIT THEIR NARRATIVE
FALSKE EKSPERTER OG OPPBLÅSTE AUTORITETSPERSONER
Verdt å merke seg her er at det er svært svært få folk som faktisk har bakgrunn fra klimarelaterte fag. Bortimot ingen av klimafornekternes "eksperter" har baggrunn fra klima. Derfor, merk deg disse fem: Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Patrick Michaels og kreasjonisten Roy Spencer. Disse navnene går igjen over alt i klimafornekterland. Av den enkle grunn at disse er omtrent de eneste folkene i verden med bakgrunn fra klima som på et eller annet nivå fremdeles fornekter AGW eller nedvurderer menneskers bidrag til global oppvarming.
1. Denying scientists.
A small minority of scientists actively deny the evidence of environmental problems such as acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate change (cf. Anderegg et al., 2010, Oreskes and Conway, 2010). They are typically not part of the established community of researchers working in the field in question. In particular, many of the very few academic climate science denialists in the United States have been physicists, rather than climate scientists as outlined by Lahsen (2008). Some denialists can also be found among older members of two communities of atmospheric scientists, namely theoretical and empirical meteorologists (Lahsen, 2013). Lahsen, 2008, Lahsen, 2013 explains their stance with political and socio-cultural factors, such as their professional socialization, their hostility against the increasing allocation of government funding to applied (impact) research rather than to basic science, and their waning role as science-policy advisors. Many of the denialists are not affiliated with any academic institution but are working for a think tank, such as the Heartland Institute or the Marshall Institute in the United States, or The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) in Australia (as described by McKewon, 2012, Oreskes and Conway, 2010, Plehwe, 2014).
(HUSK:99.4% av klimaforskere danner en knusende konsensus for AGW. Det finnes ingen vitenskapelige organisasjoner/akademier/institutter som IKKE støtter teorien om AGW.) Curry er sponset av oljeindustrien. Det samme er Michaels. Lindzen, Christy og kreasjonisten Spencer er alle tilknyttet tankesmien Heartland Institute som er sponset av oljegigantene Exxon og Koch-brothers.
Med andre ord; DE SISTE 5 GJENVÆRENDE MENNESKENE I VERDEN MED BAKGRUNN FRA KLIMA SOM FREMDELES FORNEKTER AGW/BAGATELLISERER AGW, ER ALLE SPONSET AV OLJEINDUSTRIEN!
Dette kan trygt kalles en utdøende rase. Disse fems troverdighet i klimaspørsmål er følgelig svært lav. (Mye mer om dem i DEL 3.) Resten av "ekspertene" som dukker opp i klimafornekter-land har liten eller ingen tilknytting til klima. Deres titler og navn blir vridd og vendt og ofte oppblåst gjennom ren løgn (se videoene under her). Grunnen til at dette gjøres er for å pushe autoritetsargumentet for alt det er verdt, for å få mennesker som ikke har så mye kunnskaper om klimasaker, til å tro på noe som gjerne ikke er sant bare fordi en autoritet synser om det.
Værmelderen Coleman, som dukker opp i videoen over her, blir her pinlig nok for ham, debunked av kanalen han var med å grunnlegge. Snakk om total ydmykelse.
Han blir gruset av Snopes her:
Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.
Han blir gruset av Snopes her:
Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.
To begin, Coleman hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April. If you watch Coleman on-camera, his skill is obvious. He speaks with authority, injects an irreverent sense of humor and knows how to connect with his viewer.
But a climate scientist, he is not.
His position further demonstrates an incredible lack of respect and regard for scores of intelligent, hard-working climate scientists, some of whom are politically conservative, who have dedicated their careers to objectively examining data and publishing research that indicate human-induced warming.
Han blir og grundig debunked her.
It’s ironic that on CNN’s Reliable Sources, Coleman revealed that on climate change, he’s a completely unreliable source with no expertise or credibility on the subject, preferring conspiracy theories to science.
Coleman has admitted that his views on climate change are based on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a non-peer reviewed document crafted by scientists who are reportedly each paid $300,000 by Heartland to argue against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report.
Og bare på gøy. Hvem ellers er det som bruker Coleman som "autoritet" mot AGW? Gjett en gang da? Jepp, den tok du. Selvsagt den aller største svada, tulle, pseudo, koko, konspira-siden av de alle, natural.news.
En annen nyttig idiot som brukes ofte i fornekterland er Ivar Gjæver. Gjæver er en "Bambi" på glattisen som både Klimarealistene og kreasjonister bytter bleie på regelmessig. Gjæver er tidligere nobelprisvinner i fysikk, men har siden degenerert til å bli klimafornekter og innleid oppblåst autoritet for oiljeindustrien. Her kan du lese mer om Gjævers store fall og triste sorti - og forbindelsen til tobakksindustrien.
Det er ingen i det vitenskapelige samfunnet internasjonalt som bruker cranken Gjæver til noenting som helst lenger. Hva gjenstår da? Her ser du ham fra hjemmesiden til kreasjonistene i The Cornwall Alliance, som er en del av det amerikanske klimafornekter-nettverket.(Mer om dem i del 4.)
Han blir og grundig debunked her.
It’s ironic that on CNN’s Reliable Sources, Coleman revealed that on climate change, he’s a completely unreliable source with no expertise or credibility on the subject, preferring conspiracy theories to science.
Coleman has admitted that his views on climate change are based on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a non-peer reviewed document crafted by scientists who are reportedly each paid $300,000 by Heartland to argue against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report.
Og bare på gøy. Hvem ellers er det som bruker Coleman som "autoritet" mot AGW? Gjett en gang da? Jepp, den tok du. Selvsagt den aller største svada, tulle, pseudo, koko, konspira-siden av de alle, natural.news.
En annen nyttig idiot som brukes ofte i fornekterland er Ivar Gjæver. Gjæver er en "Bambi" på glattisen som både Klimarealistene og kreasjonister bytter bleie på regelmessig. Gjæver er tidligere nobelprisvinner i fysikk, men har siden degenerert til å bli klimafornekter og innleid oppblåst autoritet for oiljeindustrien. Her kan du lese mer om Gjævers store fall og triste sorti - og forbindelsen til tobakksindustrien.
Det er ingen i det vitenskapelige samfunnet internasjonalt som bruker cranken Gjæver til noenting som helst lenger. Hva gjenstår da? Her ser du ham fra hjemmesiden til kreasjonistene i The Cornwall Alliance, som er en del av det amerikanske klimafornekter-nettverket.(Mer om dem i del 4.)
"While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.
Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized."
Gjæver sier det ganske greit selv:
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."
Listening to Giaever's opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open. While climate science has a basis in phyiscs (and many other scientific fields of study), it is an entirely different subject, whose basics Giaever could undoubtedly grasp if he were willing to put the time in to do his homework.
But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias - reinforced by a few hours of Googling - can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual's opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.
Climate change conspiracy buffs focused solely on Dr. Giaever while ignoring others who also addressed the issue of global warming at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting. On the final day of the meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions” In the months thereafter, 35 additional laureates joined the group of supporters of the declaration. As of February 2016, a total of 76 Nobel laureates endorse the Mainau Declaration 2015.
This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. As approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, this list represents a minority viewpoint.
Are You Following a Crank?
1. Cranks tend to work in isolation.
This is far and away the most defining characteristic of a crank. They tend to have no formal education in whatever field they are claiming superior insight and expertise. They do not work in that field. They are not personally acquainted with anyone actually in that field. They have never shared their work, or worked collaboratively, with anyone in the field. Yet they see themselves as having a unique acumen.
Being completely removed from a legitimate field of expertise is conducive to drifting far afield from its true knowledge base. If you want to stay abreast of the latest developments, you usually want to be part of the community. If you're not, you lack the checks and balances and corrections of peer review. Isolation is never the best way to insure that your work is on track.
2. Cranks tend to be paranoid.
They worry that their important discoveries are being spied upon, that malicious forces are out to destroy their reputations, that scientists or corporations or governments are conspiring to suppress their discoveries. Nobody doing legitimate science, or working within the scientific method, has any plausible reason to be paranoid about such things. Can any legitimate scientist recall the last time they conspired to suppress good work?
Why does the crank come to such conclusions? When a crank does attempt to get his paper into a conference or a publication, it is inevitably rejected because of its quality. But a crank is so convinced of his own correctness that there doesn't seem to be any rational reason for the community to dispute his work, therefore a conspiracy to protect the status quo and to suppress innovation seems to be the more probable explanation.
They worry that their important discoveries are being spied upon, that malicious forces are out to destroy their reputations, that scientists or corporations or governments are conspiring to suppress their discoveries. Nobody doing legitimate science, or working within the scientific method, has any plausible reason to be paranoid about such things. Can any legitimate scientist recall the last time they conspired to suppress good work?
Why does the crank come to such conclusions? When a crank does attempt to get his paper into a conference or a publication, it is inevitably rejected because of its quality. But a crank is so convinced of his own correctness that there doesn't seem to be any rational reason for the community to dispute his work, therefore a conspiracy to protect the status quo and to suppress innovation seems to be the more probable explanation.
3. Cranks tend to consider themselves geniuses.
Sooner or later a crank learns that his work is at odds with the work done in the scientific community. Part of what makes him a crank is his tendency to rationalize this by seeing himself as the one who's able to work outside the box, who approached the problem in a new way, and who came to a conclusion nobody else was bright enough to see. His work is different not because it is wrong and because he lacks the relevant knowledge; it is different because of its utter brilliance. "I'm the only one smart enough to see this" is a pretty clear red flag.
"Cranks believe scientists refuse to question the core fundamentals because of some quasi-religious dogma; whereas the real reason is simply that those questions have already been exhaustively asked and answered. Cranks don't know that because they haven't studied in that field of science, relying instead only upon their own notions, and think they are the first to ask these questions. So they seek out others whom they expect are ideologically aligned with them about challenging the dogmatically paralyzed establishment."
"Cranks believe scientists refuse to question the core fundamentals because of some quasi-religious dogma; whereas the real reason is simply that those questions have already been exhaustively asked and answered. Cranks don't know that because they haven't studied in that field of science, relying instead only upon their own notions, and think they are the first to ask these questions. So they seek out others whom they expect are ideologically aligned with them about challenging the dogmatically paralyzed establishment."
Å MISREPRESENTERE GOD KLIMAVITENSKAP / BLANK LØGN / JUKS OG BEDRAG
I senere tid har det begynte å sirkulere en liste med 58 fagfellevurderte rapporter som visstnok, ifølge diverse tvilsomme nettsteder, kan "bevise" at "Global Warming is a myth" eller at medieval warm period var varmere enn i dag, gjesp. Det er typisk at disse rapportene blir "dumpet" i store poster i klimafornekter-tåkelegger-blogger. Poenget er, som vanlig, ikke å informere, men å tåkelegge, forvirre og så tvil. Når disse rapportene og grafene filtreres gjennom fornekter-bloggene, blir de alltid "fikset" på og blir gjerne brukt til å "bevise" påstander mot global oppvarming selv om de egentlig gjerne bare handler om regional oppvarming/forhold, eller noe helt annet.
I see blog posts like this shared pretty regularly from NTZ or Breitbart. At first I took them seriously and started researching the papers cited in the blog post. Almost invariably, all the cited studies either 1) didn't claim what the blog said they did, 2) were talking about regional changes not global or 3) were published in low-quality journals lacking robust peer review. After about third post like this, I gave up taking them seriously. They are joke propaganda pieces designed to fool people who don't want to do research.
Nå har flere av forskerne bak disse rapportene uttalt seg: Ordene som går igjen er: Cherry-picking, Derogatory, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Misleading. Verdens ledende faktasjekker, Snopes, feier all tvil til side.
"An article on Breitbart News used flawed interpretations from a climate skeptic blog to amplify a grossly inaccurate understanding of climatological research."
We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim. A representative response came from Paul Mayewski, author of one of the studies included on the No Tricks Zone list and director of the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute:
They are absolutely incorrect!!!! Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios. Yet another example of downright lies.
Outside of the fact that all of these papers have squiggly lines that represent climatological change through time, they cover a diverse range of highly technical topics and have little in common with each other. In many cases, listed studies are applicable only to a very specific region and were created not to investigate the influence of humans on climate, but to understand how the climate system works in general.
This was the case for University of Washington PhD candidate Bradley Markle, whose paper (“Global Atmospheric Teleconnections During Dansgaard-Oeschger Events”) was also included in the No Tricks Zone:
My study, and almost all I saw mentioned on the blog post, are studies of climate change in the past. My study investigates connections between different parts of the climate system during climate events that happened over 10,000 years ago. Studying climate change in the past can provide context for recent climate change. However, my study in no way investigates or tries to attribute the causes of recent climate change. It does not deal with human influences on climate at all.
This echoes the response of USGS research scientist Julie Richey, whose paper (“Multi-Species Coral Sr/Ca-based Sea-Surface Temperature Reconstruction Using Orbicella Faveolata and Siderastrea Siderea from the Florida Straits”) really resonated with the Breitbart science desk:
Our paper presents a 280-year sea surface temperature record based on the ratio of strontium to calcium in corals we sampled in the Dry Tortugas National Park. It shows that sea surface temperatures measured over many decades in the Florida Straits are variable, and that variation has been dominated for nearly the past three centuries by a natural oscillation called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. […] Neither of these findings refutes the role of anthropogenic activity in global climate change.
Many researchers told us that, even by the crude metrics of the No Tricks Zone post, and even without intending to address anthropogenic climate change in their research, their papers’ data actually support anthropogenically driven recent warming. This was the case for Claremont McKenna professor Branwen Williams, whose paper (“North Pacific 20th Century Decadal-Scale Variability Is Unique for the Past 342 Years”) was featured:
I do not agree with this assessment of my work. The seawater temperature data clearly show a warming.
In other cases it appears that the analysis provided by the author of the No Tricks Zone post was so superficial that the graphs pulled from some studies were not actually part of any new dataset, but comparison datasets from earlier studies. Geologist Fatima Abrantes’ paper “Historical Climate off the Atlantic Iberian Peninsula” fell victim to this oversight:
Vår venn Potholer54 oppklarer og:
Den brunsvidde white supremacy-bloggen Breitbart har selvsagt flere ganger spredd klimaløgner. Amatør-klimafornektere elsker å linke til dem:
Klimaskeptikere liker og å linke til en sak som gjør sin runddans i fornekterblogger, deriblant den Nyhetsspeilet-lignende koko-bloggen PopularTechnolygy.net, der 900-1350 + studier blir forsøkt fremstilt som seriøse og fagfellevurderte "bevis" mot AGW.
Carbon Brief har en nådeløs gjennomgang av listen:
9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil.
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.
The top ten include:
Willie Soon, a senior scientist at the Exxon funded George C Marshall institute, and John R Christy, also a Marshall Institute expert. Ross McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Exxon funded Fraser institute and on the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – funders unknown. Dr Indur M Goklany is affiliated with the Exxon Funded thinktank the International Policy Network (US).
Sallie L Baliunas is listed by the Union of Concerned Scientists as being affiliated with nine different organisations who have all received funding from ExxonMobil, including the George C Marshall Institute.Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist and prominent sceptic who notably has a degree of credibility in the scientific community, is a member of the ‘Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy’, which has also received Exxon funding. The final name in the top 10 contributors – David H Douglass – has written several papers with Singer, Christie and Michaels – six of the fifteen papers he authored on the list were written with Michaels, Singer or Christie.
Nevertheless, these authors do not make up the whole list. There are plenty of other papers on the list which were not written by this small group. Some of the papers cited have been published in prominent peer review journals, including 34 from Nature and 33 from Science.
However, our analysis also shows that many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change – and so have little relevance to the theme of the list.
OG, IGJEN BLIR GOD KLIMAVITENSKAP OG FORSKERE MISBRUKT OG DRATT NED I SØLA:
..some of the authors featured on the list surprised us, so we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work – the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this.
Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, told the Carbon Brief when asked about the inclusion of his paper on the list: “I’ve responded to similar queries over the years. No, this is not an accurate representation of my work and I’ve said so many times to them and in print.
“I’ve asked Dennis Avery of the Heartland Institute to take my name off [another similar] list four times and I’ve never had a response. There are 15 other Columbia colleagues on there as well … and all want their names removed.”
A paper on the list by Zeebe et al. published in the journal Nature Geoscience in 2009 studies the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which is a period of rapid temperature rise around 55 million years ago.
The authors found that feedbacks such as increases in other greenhouse gases were responsible for a substantial part of global warming, alongside the direct impact of carbon dioxide. The lead author, Professor Richard Zeebe, University of Hawaii, said: “Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.” These two papers contribute to the scientific consensus on climate change, rather than undermining it.
A paper by Meehl et al, also placed on the list, discussed how the 11-year solar cycle has an amplified effect on climate signals in the tropical Pacific. The author of the paper, Gerald Meehl, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), said: “It’s odd that our 2009 paper is on a site about global warming. Our paper addressed specifically the climate system response to the 11-year solar cycle. Thus it is about decadal timescale climate variability.
“It said nothing about long-term warming trends, and in fact, in the last sentence of the paper, we state, ‘This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.'”
BONUS.
Hvem andre er det som må lage tullelister for å skape inntrykk av at der er noen - hvem som helst - som støtter deres alternative virkelighet? Kan det være flat earthers eller kreasjonster? Javisst. Sistnevnte.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Her er et annet klassisk eksempel på hvordan ny klimavitenskap blir bevisst feiltolket og satt inn i feil sammenheng:
Enkelte aviser har det med å vinkle klimavitenskapen feil. Her ser vi hvordan The Telegraph med sin misvisende overskrift vil ha leserne til å tro noe annet enn det studien faktisk viser.
Her ser vi hvordan forskerne må gå ut og irettesette media som bevisst eller ubevisst vinkler forskningen feil:
A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent. Both assertions are false.
_____________________
Det er ganske utrolig hvordan man kan få en rapport som anslår at globale utslipp må ned til null innen 40 år for å ha håp om å unngå mer enn 1,5 grader oppvarming, til å bli en nyhet om at det ikke haster å redusere utslippene.
CICERO OPPKLARER:
Enkelte avisartikler om studien hevder at temperaturen ikke stiger så raskt som FNs klimapanel forutså i 2013 og at det ikke lenger haster å kutte utslippene. Begge deler er feil. Studien anslår, på linje med FNs klimapanels Femte hovedrapport, at temperaturen i 2020 til 2030 vil være 0,9 til 1,3 grader høyere enn før den industrielle revolusjonen (2015 og 2016 var henholdsvis 0,9 og o,94 grader varmere enn før den industrielle revolusjon). Igjen: Det forskerne har gjort, er å oppdatere beregningene av hvor mye CO2 vi fremdeles kan slippe ut og samtidig med stor sannsynlighet holde oss innenfor Parisavtalen.
Hva betyr dette funnet?
Studien tyder på at vi har en reell fysisk sjanse til å klare å begrense oppvarmingen til 1,5 grader. Dette er gode nyheter, spesielt for mennesker som bor på lavtliggende øyer og i andre utsatte områder. Men det er bare en teoretisk mulighet. Virkeligheten krever fremdeles en større reduksjon i klimagassutslippene enn hva verdens land så langt har forpliktet seg til i Parisvatalen, om målet er å unngå farlige klimaendringer.
Vi har altså ikke fått bedre tid, bare litt bedre odds for å unngå farlige klimaendringer. For å klare dette, må vi starte en lynrask reduksjon av utslippene i dag.
RealClimate forklarer videre:
There has been a bit of excitement and confusion this week about a new paper in Nature Geoscience, claiming that we can still limit global warming to below 1.5 °C above preindustrial temperatures, whilst emitting another ~800 Gigatons of carbon dioxide. That’s much more than previously thought, so how come? And while that sounds like very welcome good news, is it true? Here’s the key points.
Misinformation spread through right-wing media outlets
Rose’s story seemed to have all the climate denial components that biased conservative media outlets crave. A lone wolf scientist whistleblowing his former colleagues with accusations of data manipulation for political purposes? Despite the glaring errors in the story that were immediately called out by climate scientists and reputable science journalists, this narrative proved irresistible to the conservative media: Breitbart, Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, The Washington Times, and more ran with Rose’s story. Meanwhile, legitimate news outlets like The Guardian, The Washington Post, Carbon Brief, E&E News, Ars Technica, Science Insider, RealClimate, and numerous other science blogs quickly debunked Rose’s falsehoods.
Her er enda et klassisk eksempel på hvordan ny klimavitenskap blir bevisst feiltolket og satt inn i feil sammenheng:
Marius Årthun og kollegaane har funne ein samanheng mellom klimaet og temperaturen i havet. Les mer i denne bloggposten.
I senere tid har det begynte å sirkulere en liste med 58 fagfellevurderte rapporter som visstnok, ifølge diverse tvilsomme nettsteder, kan "bevise" at "Global Warming is a myth" eller at medieval warm period var varmere enn i dag, gjesp. Det er typisk at disse rapportene blir "dumpet" i store poster i klimafornekter-tåkelegger-blogger. Poenget er, som vanlig, ikke å informere, men å tåkelegge, forvirre og så tvil. Når disse rapportene og grafene filtreres gjennom fornekter-bloggene, blir de alltid "fikset" på og blir gjerne brukt til å "bevise" påstander mot global oppvarming selv om de egentlig gjerne bare handler om regional oppvarming/forhold, eller noe helt annet.
I see blog posts like this shared pretty regularly from NTZ or Breitbart. At first I took them seriously and started researching the papers cited in the blog post. Almost invariably, all the cited studies either 1) didn't claim what the blog said they did, 2) were talking about regional changes not global or 3) were published in low-quality journals lacking robust peer review. After about third post like this, I gave up taking them seriously. They are joke propaganda pieces designed to fool people who don't want to do research.
Nå har flere av forskerne bak disse rapportene uttalt seg: Ordene som går igjen er: Cherry-picking, Derogatory, Flawed reasoning, Inaccurate, Misleading. Verdens ledende faktasjekker, Snopes, feier all tvil til side.
They are absolutely incorrect!!!! Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios. Yet another example of downright lies.
Outside of the fact that all of these papers have squiggly lines that represent climatological change through time, they cover a diverse range of highly technical topics and have little in common with each other. In many cases, listed studies are applicable only to a very specific region and were created not to investigate the influence of humans on climate, but to understand how the climate system works in general.
This was the case for University of Washington PhD candidate Bradley Markle, whose paper (“Global Atmospheric Teleconnections During Dansgaard-Oeschger Events”) was also included in the No Tricks Zone:
Our paper presents a 280-year sea surface temperature record based on the ratio of strontium to calcium in corals we sampled in the Dry Tortugas National Park. It shows that sea surface temperatures measured over many decades in the Florida Straits are variable, and that variation has been dominated for nearly the past three centuries by a natural oscillation called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. […] Neither of these findings refutes the role of anthropogenic activity in global climate change.
Many researchers told us that, even by the crude metrics of the No Tricks Zone post, and even without intending to address anthropogenic climate change in their research, their papers’ data actually support anthropogenically driven recent warming. This was the case for Claremont McKenna professor Branwen Williams, whose paper (“North Pacific 20th Century Decadal-Scale Variability Is Unique for the Past 342 Years”) was featured:
Vår venn Potholer54 oppklarer og:
Den brunsvidde white supremacy-bloggen Breitbart har selvsagt flere ganger spredd klimaløgner. Amatør-klimafornektere elsker å linke til dem:
Klimaskeptikere liker og å linke til en sak som gjør sin runddans i fornekterblogger, deriblant den Nyhetsspeilet-lignende koko-bloggen PopularTechnolygy.net, der 900-1350 + studier blir forsøkt fremstilt som seriøse og fagfellevurderte "bevis" mot AGW.
Carbon Brief har en nådeløs gjennomgang av listen:
9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil.
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.
Willie Soon, a senior scientist at the Exxon funded George C Marshall institute, and John R Christy, also a Marshall Institute expert. Ross McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Exxon funded Fraser institute and on the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – funders unknown. Dr Indur M Goklany is affiliated with the Exxon Funded thinktank the International Policy Network (US).
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.
The top ten include:
Willie Soon, a senior scientist at the Exxon funded George C Marshall institute, and John R Christy, also a Marshall Institute expert. Ross McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Exxon funded Fraser institute and on the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – funders unknown. Dr Indur M Goklany is affiliated with the Exxon Funded thinktank the International Policy Network (US).
Sallie L Baliunas is listed by the Union of Concerned Scientists as being affiliated with nine different organisations who have all received funding from ExxonMobil, including the George C Marshall Institute.Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist and prominent sceptic who notably has a degree of credibility in the scientific community, is a member of the ‘Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy’, which has also received Exxon funding. The final name in the top 10 contributors – David H Douglass – has written several papers with Singer, Christie and Michaels – six of the fifteen papers he authored on the list were written with Michaels, Singer or Christie.
Nevertheless, these authors do not make up the whole list. There are plenty of other papers on the list which were not written by this small group. Some of the papers cited have been published in prominent peer review journals, including 34 from Nature and 33 from Science.
However, our analysis also shows that many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change – and so have little relevance to the theme of the list.
OG, IGJEN BLIR GOD KLIMAVITENSKAP OG FORSKERE MISBRUKT OG DRATT NED I SØLA:
..some of the authors featured on the list surprised us, so we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work – the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this.
Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, told the Carbon Brief when asked about the inclusion of his paper on the list: “I’ve responded to similar queries over the years. No, this is not an accurate representation of my work and I’ve said so many times to them and in print.
“I’ve asked Dennis Avery of the Heartland Institute to take my name off [another similar] list four times and I’ve never had a response. There are 15 other Columbia colleagues on there as well … and all want their names removed.”
A paper on the list by Zeebe et al. published in the journal Nature Geoscience in 2009 studies the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which is a period of rapid temperature rise around 55 million years ago.
The authors found that feedbacks such as increases in other greenhouse gases were responsible for a substantial part of global warming, alongside the direct impact of carbon dioxide. The lead author, Professor Richard Zeebe, University of Hawaii, said: “Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.” These two papers contribute to the scientific consensus on climate change, rather than undermining it.
A paper by Meehl et al, also placed on the list, discussed how the 11-year solar cycle has an amplified effect on climate signals in the tropical Pacific. The author of the paper, Gerald Meehl, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), said: “It’s odd that our 2009 paper is on a site about global warming. Our paper addressed specifically the climate system response to the 11-year solar cycle. Thus it is about decadal timescale climate variability.
“It said nothing about long-term warming trends, and in fact, in the last sentence of the paper, we state, ‘This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.'”
BONUS.
Hvem andre er det som må lage tullelister for å skape inntrykk av at der er noen - hvem som helst - som støtter deres alternative virkelighet? Kan det være flat earthers eller kreasjonster? Javisst. Sistnevnte.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Her er et annet klassisk eksempel på hvordan ny klimavitenskap blir bevisst feiltolket og satt inn i feil sammenheng:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Her er et annet klassisk eksempel på hvordan ny klimavitenskap blir bevisst feiltolket og satt inn i feil sammenheng:
Her er et annet klassisk eksempel på hvordan ny klimavitenskap blir bevisst feiltolket og satt inn i feil sammenheng:
Enkelte aviser har det med å vinkle klimavitenskapen feil. Her ser vi hvordan The Telegraph med sin misvisende overskrift vil ha leserne til å tro noe annet enn det studien faktisk viser.
Her ser vi hvordan forskerne må gå ut og irettesette media som bevisst eller ubevisst vinkler forskningen feil:
Her ser vi hvordan forskerne må gå ut og irettesette media som bevisst eller ubevisst vinkler forskningen feil:
A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent. Both assertions are false.
_____________________
Det er ganske utrolig hvordan man kan få en rapport som anslår at globale utslipp må ned til null innen 40 år for å ha håp om å unngå mer enn 1,5 grader oppvarming, til å bli en nyhet om at det ikke haster å redusere utslippene.
CICERO OPPKLARER:
Enkelte avisartikler om studien hevder at temperaturen ikke stiger så raskt som FNs klimapanel forutså i 2013 og at det ikke lenger haster å kutte utslippene. Begge deler er feil. Studien anslår, på linje med FNs klimapanels Femte hovedrapport, at temperaturen i 2020 til 2030 vil være 0,9 til 1,3 grader høyere enn før den industrielle revolusjonen (2015 og 2016 var henholdsvis 0,9 og o,94 grader varmere enn før den industrielle revolusjon). Igjen: Det forskerne har gjort, er å oppdatere beregningene av hvor mye CO2 vi fremdeles kan slippe ut og samtidig med stor sannsynlighet holde oss innenfor Parisavtalen.
Hva betyr dette funnet?
Studien tyder på at vi har en reell fysisk sjanse til å klare å begrense oppvarmingen til 1,5 grader. Dette er gode nyheter, spesielt for mennesker som bor på lavtliggende øyer og i andre utsatte områder. Men det er bare en teoretisk mulighet. Virkeligheten krever fremdeles en større reduksjon i klimagassutslippene enn hva verdens land så langt har forpliktet seg til i Parisvatalen, om målet er å unngå farlige klimaendringer.
Vi har altså ikke fått bedre tid, bare litt bedre odds for å unngå farlige klimaendringer. For å klare dette, må vi starte en lynrask reduksjon av utslippene i dag.
RealClimate forklarer videre:
Enkelte avisartikler om studien hevder at temperaturen ikke stiger så raskt som FNs klimapanel forutså i 2013 og at det ikke lenger haster å kutte utslippene. Begge deler er feil. Studien anslår, på linje med FNs klimapanels Femte hovedrapport, at temperaturen i 2020 til 2030 vil være 0,9 til 1,3 grader høyere enn før den industrielle revolusjonen (2015 og 2016 var henholdsvis 0,9 og o,94 grader varmere enn før den industrielle revolusjon). Igjen: Det forskerne har gjort, er å oppdatere beregningene av hvor mye CO2 vi fremdeles kan slippe ut og samtidig med stor sannsynlighet holde oss innenfor Parisavtalen.
Hva betyr dette funnet?
Studien tyder på at vi har en reell fysisk sjanse til å klare å begrense oppvarmingen til 1,5 grader. Dette er gode nyheter, spesielt for mennesker som bor på lavtliggende øyer og i andre utsatte områder. Men det er bare en teoretisk mulighet. Virkeligheten krever fremdeles en større reduksjon i klimagassutslippene enn hva verdens land så langt har forpliktet seg til i Parisvatalen, om målet er å unngå farlige klimaendringer.
Vi har altså ikke fått bedre tid, bare litt bedre odds for å unngå farlige klimaendringer. For å klare dette, må vi starte en lynrask reduksjon av utslippene i dag.
RealClimate forklarer videre:
There has been a bit of excitement and confusion this week about a new paper in Nature Geoscience, claiming that we can still limit global warming to below 1.5 °C above preindustrial temperatures, whilst emitting another ~800 Gigatons of carbon dioxide. That’s much more than previously thought, so how come? And while that sounds like very welcome good news, is it true? Here’s the key points.
Misinformation spread through right-wing media outlets
Rose’s story seemed to have all the climate denial components that biased conservative media outlets crave. A lone wolf scientist whistleblowing his former colleagues with accusations of data manipulation for political purposes? Despite the glaring errors in the story that were immediately called out by climate scientists and reputable science journalists, this narrative proved irresistible to the conservative media: Breitbart, Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, The Washington Times, and more ran with Rose’s story. Meanwhile, legitimate news outlets like The Guardian, The Washington Post, Carbon Brief, E&E News, Ars Technica, Science Insider, RealClimate, and numerous other science blogs quickly debunked Rose’s falsehoods.
Misinformation spread through right-wing media outlets
Rose’s story seemed to have all the climate denial components that biased conservative media outlets crave. A lone wolf scientist whistleblowing his former colleagues with accusations of data manipulation for political purposes? Despite the glaring errors in the story that were immediately called out by climate scientists and reputable science journalists, this narrative proved irresistible to the conservative media: Breitbart, Fox News, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, The Washington Times, and more ran with Rose’s story. Meanwhile, legitimate news outlets like The Guardian, The Washington Post, Carbon Brief, E&E News, Ars Technica, Science Insider, RealClimate, and numerous other science blogs quickly debunked Rose’s falsehoods.
I oktober 2017 får vi et annet eksempel på hvordan klimavitenskap blir bevisst missbrukt og misrepresentert.
Klimaforsker Rasmus Benestad blir intervjuet av Forskning.no. Journalisten vinklet saken særs merkelig og tok ikke hensyn til Benestads korrektur.Det var setninger som dette Benestad spesielt reagerte på:
"Spådommen var at det skulle bli mye varmere, mye fortere de siste 20 årene. Det ser ut til at oppvarmingen har vært mye mindre og har gått mye saktere enn det modellene forutsa."
Dette gjorde at Benestad skrev en oppklarende kronikk i Dagsavisen:
"Det er ingen hemmelighet at jeg har vært skeptiske til forkning.no før, noe jeg allerede ga uttrykk for i 2007 gjennom kronikken “Forskning?NO!”.
"Det har gått ti år siden jeg hadde min siste dyst med forskning.no, så jeg skulle gi dem en ny sjanse. Men nå angrer jeg på at jeg tok kontakt og lot meg intervjue av dem. Jeg kjenner meg ikke igjen i saken “Statistikk skal gi bedre resultater fra klimamodellene”.
Den har flere faktafeil og misvisende påstander. Utgangspunktet var nemlig en artikkel som jeg hadde vært med å publisere i tidsskriftet Nature Climate Change, men saken ble noe helt annet enn hva jeg hadde forespeilet meg fra starten av. Journalisten, Lene Johansen, ga meg riktignok anledning til korrekturlesning, men tok ikke hensyn til mine innsigelser. Hvorfor gjorde hun ikke det?
Jeg er nemlig svært skeptisk til påstanden hennes om at oppvarmingen skal ha vært “mye mindre” og “gått mye saktere” enn det modellene har forutsagt. For oppdatert informasjon modell og observasjoner, se RealClimate.org."
Det viser seg at journalisten har bakgrunn fra en av de mest aggressive klimaløgnspreder-tankesmiene CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute),som tidligere lobbet for tobakksindustrien.
JUKS OG BEDRAG
Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught. The scientists briefly known as Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez thought they had found something big.
It was not data wrung from a clever experiment or a lucky field observation. Instead, the pair had constructed a model, a mathematical argument, for calculating the average surface temperature of a rocky planet. Using just two factors — electromagnetic radiation beamed by the sun into the atmosphere and the atmospheric pressure at a planet’s surface — the scientists could predict a planet’s temperature.
The physical principle, they said, was similar to the way that high-pressure air ignites fuel in a diesel engine.If proved to be the case on Earth, the model would have dramatic implications: Our planet is warming, but the solar radiation and our atmosphere would be to blame, not us.
Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
A blog post, even if you like it and it is presented in downloadable PDF form, is not a peer-reviewed study.
"Ultimately, the central argument of this study and its representation by Breitbart and others is one based on a willful misreading of data propelled by a study whose academic rigor has been misrepresented. As such, we rank the claim that climate scientists have created global warming entirely through corrections to raw data as false. While these corrections to raw historical data have shifted over time, the cumulative effect of all corrections applied to the raw data has been to reduce apparent global warming over the industrialized period, not the other way around."
_____________________
We Fact-Checked a Bogus “Study” on Global Temperature That’s Misleading Readers
Embarrassing Error # 1:
The authors erroneously claim that the NASA, NOAA, and Hadley CRU global average surface temperature records all produce the same results simply because they use many of the same land-based weather stations as sources.
These datasets incorporate information from thousands of individual weather stations, ocean measurements and satellite data. Each of these datasets incorporate as many high-quality temperature data sources as possible, including many in common. Then, each dataset is constructed and analyzed using different methods. Why? Because this is what scientists do to be confident about their results. Scientists test and re-test datasets to see if – using different methods and approaches – they get the same results as their colleagues working independently. I would not want to fly in a plane that had only been inspected once – would you?
Embarrassing Error # 2:
The authors falsely claim that the NASA, NOAA and Hadley CRU GAST records do not properly take into account factors such as urban heat islands and changes in the technologies used to measure land and ocean temperatures over time. They also falsely claim that each of the datasets has selectively biased results in order to exaggerate an upward trend in temperature.
In fact, it is well-established that these datasets do account for these and other factors needed to ensure consistent, comparable and accurate results. Researchers have repeatedly found that the methods used to account for these issues do not affect GAST records to any substantial extent. The size of global surface temperature increases swamps the noise associated with these known and well-studied factors.
Embarrassing Error #3:
The authors cherry-pick some examples in the US as “evidence” that they use to try and refute the well-documented increase in the global average temperature.
Of course, the NOAA, NASA, and CRU datasets include these regional variations. Bottom line: there is a pronounced increase in the global average surface temperature since pre-industrial times and such regional variations are to be expected.
It was not data wrung from a clever experiment or a lucky field observation. Instead, the pair had constructed a model, a mathematical argument, for calculating the average surface temperature of a rocky planet. Using just two factors — electromagnetic radiation beamed by the sun into the atmosphere and the atmospheric pressure at a planet’s surface — the scientists could predict a planet’s temperature.
The physical principle, they said, was similar to the way that high-pressure air ignites fuel in a diesel engine.If proved to be the case on Earth, the model would have dramatic implications: Our planet is warming, but the solar radiation and our atmosphere would be to blame, not us.
Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
A blog post, even if you like it and it is presented in downloadable PDF form, is not a peer-reviewed study.
"Ultimately, the central argument of this study and its representation by Breitbart and others is one based on a willful misreading of data propelled by a study whose academic rigor has been misrepresented. As such, we rank the claim that climate scientists have created global warming entirely through corrections to raw data as false. While these corrections to raw historical data have shifted over time, the cumulative effect of all corrections applied to the raw data has been to reduce apparent global warming over the industrialized period, not the other way around."
_____________________
Embarrassing Error # 1:
The authors erroneously claim that the NASA, NOAA, and Hadley CRU global average surface temperature records all produce the same results simply because they use many of the same land-based weather stations as sources.
The authors erroneously claim that the NASA, NOAA, and Hadley CRU global average surface temperature records all produce the same results simply because they use many of the same land-based weather stations as sources.
These datasets incorporate information from thousands of individual weather stations, ocean measurements and satellite data. Each of these datasets incorporate as many high-quality temperature data sources as possible, including many in common. Then, each dataset is constructed and analyzed using different methods. Why? Because this is what scientists do to be confident about their results. Scientists test and re-test datasets to see if – using different methods and approaches – they get the same results as their colleagues working independently. I would not want to fly in a plane that had only been inspected once – would you?
Embarrassing Error # 2:
The authors falsely claim that the NASA, NOAA and Hadley CRU GAST records do not properly take into account factors such as urban heat islands and changes in the technologies used to measure land and ocean temperatures over time. They also falsely claim that each of the datasets has selectively biased results in order to exaggerate an upward trend in temperature.
In fact, it is well-established that these datasets do account for these and other factors needed to ensure consistent, comparable and accurate results. Researchers have repeatedly found that the methods used to account for these issues do not affect GAST records to any substantial extent. The size of global surface temperature increases swamps the noise associated with these known and well-studied factors.
Embarrassing Error #3:
The authors cherry-pick some examples in the US as “evidence” that they use to try and refute the well-documented increase in the global average temperature.
Of course, the NOAA, NASA, and CRU datasets include these regional variations. Bottom line: there is a pronounced increase in the global average surface temperature since pre-industrial times and such regional variations are to be expected.
UNDERGRAVING AV DEN FAGFELLEVURDERTE KLIMAVITENSKAPEN
En av klimafornekternes mange taktikker er å sverte forskerne og undergrave betydningen av fagfellevurdert vitenskap. Nettopp fordi deres syn finner svært lite støtte der. Dette har og dype ideologiske røtter. Mer om dette her og i del 3 og 4. Her kan du sjekke kvaliteten på journaler ved å bruke Master Journal List. Også her kan en sjekke en journals pålitelighet og relevans.
The lone documented case of true 'pal review' was committed by climate contrarians in the journal Climate Research from 1997 to 2003, during which time editor Chris de Freitas accepted 14 papers from a select group of contrarians. The journal had not published any papers from that group of authors previously, and only published 2 more papers from the group of 'pals' after de Freitas left.
We often hear claims from climate contrarians that climate scientists are guilty of what they describe as "pal review." The conspiracy theory goes something like this - climate scientists conduct biased research with the goal of confirming the human-caused global warming theory. They then submit their biased results to a peer-reviewed journal with friendly editors ("pals") who pass their paper along to friendly reviewers (other "pals") who give their fraudulent work the green light for publication. Thus, the contrarians argue, the preponderance of peer-reviewed literature supporting human-caused global warming is really just a sign of corruption amongst climate scientists.
However, while climate contrarians are never able to produce any evidence to support their conspiracy theory, John Mashey has thoroughly documented a real world example of true pal review. Contrary to the standard conspiracy theory, the pal review did not involve mainstream climate scientists, but instead the climate contrarians themselves.
The True Story of Climate Research Pal Review
Mashey has done an excellent job documenting a real life case of pal review, which happened at the journal Climate Research between 1997 and 2003. That particular journal was once again brought to the forefront in the recent second Climategate stolen email release.
A group of 14 climate contrarians found a sympathetic journal editor who proceeded to publish a large number of papers from this group over a very short timeframe, many of which were scientifically flawed, some of which were subsequently used by politicians to oppose climate legislation.
___________________
"Greenpeace said its investigation demonstrated how, unbeknownst to the public, the fossil fuel industry could inject paid-for views about climate change into the international debate, confusing the public and blocking prospects for strong action to avoid dangerous warming."
“Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret,” said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. “Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it.”
"Such practices are receiving greater scrutiny in academic circles after it emerged that Dr Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who rejects mainstream climate science, was financed almost entirely by fossil fuel companies and lobby groups and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. The Smithsonian launched an investigation."
"In Happer’s case, the physicist declined any personal remuneration for his work but wanted his fee donated to the CO2 Coalition. Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-scienceBONUS
Energy and Environment - Klimaskeptikernes egen (søppel)journal
Dette er stedet der klimaskeptikere får publisert studier som ikke holder mål. Studier som derfor ikke er å finne i den respektable fagfellevurderte literaturen. Journalen har en tydelig anti-vitenskapelig pro-fossil-brensel industri agenda.
The journal Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic. Co-editor is Benny Peiser.
Energy and Environment is carried in the ISI and SCOPUS listing of peer-reviewed journals, but its peer review process has been criticized for allowing the publication of substandard papers. Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.
Climate change skeptics who have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.
The current editor of Energy and Environment Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits in an article published online that "the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive" She also states elsewhere I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," ... "But isn't that the right of the editor?
It is unclear whether E&E is peer-reviewed. The journal is not listed by the ISI Web of Knowledge, which provides “comprehensive coverage of the world’s most important and influential journals“. E&E has been described by Gavin Schmidt of the science blog RealClimate as having “effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line”.
La oss sjekke hvor pålitelig og relevant E&E er:
One way to consider a journal’s relative importance within its field is to examine its impact factor – the number of times the average journal paper is cited over a two year period.
SCImago journal rank shows that the average paper published in E&E has an impact factor of around 0.42 – less than one citation every four years. Nature, one of the most central scientific journals in this field, has an impact factor of around 30. The Journal of Climate, a mainstream but smaller climate journal, has an impact factor of 3.57.
SCImago also provides citation information for every journal it lists – the first graph shows the number of times journal articles in E&E were cited in individual years. The second, by way of comparison, shows the same information for the Journal of Climate.
Her ser vi hvor påfallende lite E&E blir sitert i forhold til en journal som den respekterte Journal of Climate (øverste bilde):
SISTE:
Climate Science Deniers’ Favourite Journal Just got ‘Overhauled’ — And it Could Lead to a Skeptic Shutout
SISTE:
Climate Science Deniers’ Favourite Journal Just got ‘Overhauled’ — And it Could Lead to a Skeptic Shutout
The publisher of an academic journal beloved by climate science deniers has been revamped to ensure it meets industry standards of peer-review and editorial practice. Its climate science denier editor has also stepped down.
Long a home for papers that cast doubt on climate science and the seriousness of climate change, Energy and Environment was recently bought by publishing behemoth SAGE. As part of the acquisition process, the publisher “over-hauled its peer review practices to bring it into line with SAGE standards”, a spokesperson told DeSmog UK.
Beware! Academics are getting reeled in by scam journals
The number of predatory publishers is skyrocketing – and they’re eager to pounce on unsuspecting scholars.
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/beware-academics-getting-reeled-scam-journals/
Long a home for papers that cast doubt on climate science and the seriousness of climate change, Energy and Environment was recently bought by publishing behemoth SAGE. As part of the acquisition process, the publisher “over-hauled its peer review practices to bring it into line with SAGE standards”, a spokesperson told DeSmog UK.
Beware! Academics are getting reeled in by scam journals
The number of predatory publishers is skyrocketing – and they’re eager to pounce on unsuspecting scholars.
Potholer54 forteller om junk journals:
FALSK BALANSE
er et begrep innen medieverdenen som beskriver en situasjon der man i forsøket på balansert journalistikk tegner et falskt bilde av virkeligheten. En av journalistikkens gyldne regler er at man alltid skal la begge parter slippe til med sine synspunkter dersom det er uenighet om et tema. Falsk balanse oppstår i tilfeller der det er bred konsensus om en sak, men hvor man likevel lar marginale synspunkter ta stor plass og derved skape et feilaktig inntrykk av at det hersker uenighet om temaet. Skepsis til teorien om menneskeskapt global oppvarming er et av de mest kjente eksemplene på hvordan medier har formidlet falsk balanse.
Trump’s EPA administrator Scott Pruitt wants to hold televised ‘Red Team/Blue Team’ climate science ‘debates.’ The idea is that a ‘Red Team’ of scientists will challenge the mainstream findings of ‘Blue Team’ scientists. That may sound familiar, because it’s exactly how the peer-review process works. But climate deniers have lost the debate in the peer-reviewed literature, with over 97% of peer-reviewed studies endorsing the consensus on human-caused global warming, and the few contrarian papers being flawed and failing to withstand scientific scrutiny.
So Scott Pruitt is trying to put his thumb on the scale, giving the less than 3% of contrarian scientists equal footing on a ‘Red Team.’ John Oliver showed how to do a statistically representative televised climate debate (so brilliantly that it’s been viewed 7.4m times), but it’s probably not what Pruitt had in mind:
Det er bred vitenskapelig konsensus om at utslipp av klimagasser er en årsak til global oppvarming, men mange medier har likevel gitt stor plass til en liten minoritet av forskere som ikke støtter dette synet.
Resultatet av falsk balanse er at myter som vitenskapen egentlig har avlivet likevel overlever lenge i befolkningen. (Wikipedia)
UMULIGE FORVENTNINGER
Jordens klima er komplekst og ethvert ønske om å forutsi dette på lik linje med matematikk er bare ikke mulig. Usikkerheten til klimamodellene brukes ofte som en unnskyldning for å avvise enhver konklusjon som kan komme fra klimamodeller. Eller enda verre, usikkerheten til klimamodellene blir brukt til å avvise alle bevis på menneskeskapt global oppvarming. Dette forsømmer det faktum at det finnes veldig mange flere rekker, fra mange forskjellige fagfelt, med empirisk bevis for at mennesker bidrar til global oppvarming. Klimaløgnmakerne kirsebærplukker sine data og sine sitater, og bruker enkle feil eller unøyaktigheter i klimaforskningen som “bevis” på at hele fagområdet er korrupt. Men, feil og unøyaktigheter blir i klimaforskning - som i all forskning - fortløpende justert og korrigert. Som nevnt tidligere, det er slik den Vitenskapelige Metode fungerer.This is exactly how open public science works. It tells us what its doing and how its improving over time. If its all a hoax and theyre corrupt, why would they write such a report? it means the model requires adjustment. That's the way science works, science is iterative, this is laying the work for the next iteration. A model is the basis for a simulation, think of it like a video game, the first models of climate were like pong, then pacman, as technology made our computation more efficient you eventually end up with doom, unreal tournament, eventually you end up with stunning master pieces like The Last Guardian.
You can't expect climate models to be developed perfect with no flaws the first time they are envisioned and say "This is the one truth and it will always be so". Science is not dogmatic, the current model is mostly correct. This paper demonstrates that improvements can be made but its not like we released FFXV with the graphical equivalent of FFVII and have been lying about how accurate everything is. This is more like the bump from Skyrim to Fallout 4 same engine some extra refinements and graphics retooling better textures, etc. This is simply the next engine release.
Science is always improving. You call it wrong, we call it better. We will always need to improve the model that doesn't mean its wrong, it means it needs improvement. It will always need improvement as the model asymptotically approaches 100% accuracy. It will never be 100% but we can always improve it.
IPCC er ikke perfekte, og det har de aldri vært. Det samme er fengselssystemet og utdanningssystemet; Hver institusjon er et kompromiss om å prøve å glede alle sammen. De er ufullkomne, men de er de beste vi kan sette sammen. Kritikken er helt gyldig. Men, det er ikkenødvendig å se på IPCC som en perfekt institusjon for å akseptere den vitenskapelige konsensus som den gir.
GALILEIO-ARGUMENTET
En skeptisk tilnærming er å kritisk evaluere oppfatninger og påstander, egne inkludert, på grunnlag av empiriske observasjoner. Det er ikke det samme som å være prinsipielt kritisk til etablerte sannheter som ikke passer ens eget verdensbilde. Klimaskeptikere er frekke nok til å påstå at de blir "ekskludert" fra den seriøse forskingen. At vitenskapen "har tatt feil før" og at "nye ideer må få sjansen til å bli hørt". Husk Galileio roper de. Greit nok, men i denne sammenhengen er Galileio-poenget fullstendig snudd på hodet.
Galileios konklusjoner stammer fra observasjoner og logikk. Galileos bevis- og logikkbaserte undersøkelsesmetode ble senere kjent som den vitenskapelige metode. Moderne forskere - inkludert klimaforskerne - følger den bevisbaserte vitenskapelige metoden som Galileo var en forkjemper for. Skeptikere som motsetter seg vitenskapelige funn som truer deres ideologi er langt nærmere Galileos trosbaserte kritikere i den katolske kirken. I dag er det klimaskeptikere, flat earthers og kreasjonister som utgjør disse kritikerne.
I motsetning til Galileo og moderne forskere endrer de ikke deres syn når de presenteres med nye bevis, fordi deres ståsted ikke er et resultat av konklusjoner fra den åpne vitenskapelige forskningen, men fra sterke ideologiske overbevisninger.
Mange fornektere har dessuten en overdreven tro på egne kunnskaper og burde nok sjekket ut Dunning-Kruger-effekten: Mennesker har en tendens til å ha et overdrevet syn på egne evner på mange sosiale og intellektuelle områder. Dunning og Kruger mener at dette skyldes delvis at personer som er inkompetente på disse områdene også mangler metakognitive ferdigheter til å forstå at de er sosialt og intellektuelt inkompetente.
Klimaskeptikere "produserer" ikke nye bevis for å forbedre den eksisterende klimavitenskapen. I stedet søker de etter feil i andres forskning og tåkelegger klimasaken for å så tvil. Du finner ikke klimaskeptisk "vitenskap" innenfor den seriøse vitenskapen av samme grunn som du ikke finner kreasjonist-"vitenskap eller flat-jord-"vitenskap" der.
Klimaskeptikere "produserer" ikke nye bevis for å forbedre den eksisterende klimavitenskapen. I stedet søker de etter feil i andres forskning og tåkelegger klimasaken for å så tvil. Du finner ikke klimaskeptisk "vitenskap" innenfor den seriøse vitenskapen av samme grunn som du ikke finner kreasjonist-"vitenskap eller flat-jord-"vitenskap" der.
Klimafornekternes anti-vitenskapelige agenda får meg alltid til å tenke på Anne Elk:
A skeptical approach is to critically evaluate perceptions and statements, including ones, based on empirical observations. It's not the same as being fundamentally critical of established truths that do not match your own worldview.
Climate skeptics are rude enough to claim that they are "excluded" from the serious research. That science has "been wrong before" and that "new ideas must be given the chance to be heard". Fair enough, but in this context the point is completely turned up side down. Galileo's conclusions derive from observations and logic.
Galileo's evidence-based and logic-based method of investigation was later known as the scientific method. Modern researchers - including climate researchers - follow the evidence-based scientific method that Galileo was a champion of. Skeptics who oppose scientific findings threatening their ideology are far closer to Galileo's faith-based critics in the Catholic Church.
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
Today there are climate skeptics, flat earthers and creationists who make up these critics. Unlike Galileo and modern researchers, they do not change their views when presented with new evidence because their point of view is not the result of conclusions from open scientific research but from strong ideological beliefs.
Climate skeptics do not "produce" new evidence to improve existing climate science. Instead, they are looking for errors in other people's research and fog climate matters to create doubt. You do not find climate-skeptical "science" within the serious science for the same reason as you do not find the creationist "science" or flat-earth "science" there.
“ALARMISTER"
Et annet billig triks er bruken av begrepet "alarmister". Eller som noen sier “Global warming alarmists”. Dette er konspira-uttrykk. Stråmann. En retorisk avledningsmanøver/tankefeil. Det er opprettet for at klimafornektere ikke skal høres ut som paranoide konspirasjons-teoretikere. (Mange er det likevel). Det er lettere å skylde på “alarmister” enn å påstå, som mange dog gjør likevel, at alle verdens klimaforskere har skapt en “falsk klimakrise”. Ved å opprette disse diffuse stråmennene søker en å unngå/undergrave/så tvil om faktaene om klimaendringer ved å påstå at disse faktaene “bare er synsing” fra mennesker som tilhører “venstresiden” eller som er “miljøaktivister”, og som nærmest har “bestilt disse faktaene” fra korrupte klimaforskere.
Å forholde seg til den overveldende bevismengden for AGW, støttet av alle vitenskapelige akademier i verden + 99% av dan fagfellevurderte litteraturen + de fleste oljeselskaper og observasjoner fra grunnleggende fysikk, er ikke “alarmisme”.
Det er realisme.
Alarmisme er når du tilhører et bittelite mindretall og må skrike høyt om og om igjen om en internasjonal konspirasjon for å få din alternative virkelighet til å stemme. Slik som flat earthers, kreasjonister, månelandings-konspirasjon-folket og klimafornektere må.
Relating to the overwhelming mountain of evidence for AGW backed by EVERY single national academy of sciences on the planet, even most oil companes + all the peer reviewed science + observations and the principles of basic physics, is not "alarmism".
Its realism.
Alarmism is when you're in the fringe minority screaming madly again and again that there must be a world wide conspiracy at work in order for your alternative reality to make sense. Like flat Earthers, creationists, moon landing conspiracy drivlers and climate deniers have to.
Klimafornekterne roper stadig vekk om at IPPC og andre spår dommedagsscenarier, samtidig som de selv alltid kirsebærplukker 1998. Som vi har sett, kommer ikke dommedagscenariene fra forskerne selv. De kommer fra media og fornekter-mytene. Det er DEM som er de ekte alarmistene. Disse er så på kornet at jeg dauer:
11. THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE-FILMEN
YouTube er full av klimaløgn-videoer fra synsere, falske eksperter og oppblåste autoritetspersoner. De er som oftest resirkulert junk-science, stigmatisert kunnskap og svada som er debunket før. Det er heller ikke vanskelig å finne “proffe”videoer med falske eksperter som angriper NOAA, NASA, IPPC og alle verdens klimaforskere. Vi skal senere kikke nærmere på flere av disse videoene og se på hvem som står bak denne organiserte politisk motiverte tåkeleggingen.
Dette er en av klimaløgnbevegelsens “hovedbeviser”. En film der stigmatisert kunnskap og resirkulerte argumenter som er avvist tusen ganger før er pakket inn i en seksti minutters "dokumentar” sponset av fossil-brensel industrien. Filmen har derfor to hovedformål, jepp du gjettet det;
1. Å ufarliggjøre C02, og
2. undergrave IPPC.
Om ikke annet, er den et godt eksempel på hvordan løgnmakerne kirsebærplukker, forvrenger og produserer "fakta" for å skape en alternativ virkelighet tilpasset deres agenda. Akkurat slik som kreasjonister må gjøre. De fleste amatør-fornektere sine "kunnskaper" om klima stammer fra å ha sett denne filmen på YouTube. De barnslige og irrelevante kommentarene om at C02 "bare er en sporgass" kommer herfra. Dette er klimafornekting på veldig lavt nivå.
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/fullcomplaint.pdf
Filmens lange rekke av løgner blir brutalt avslørt over alt i denne bloggen, og i denne videoen:
The first thing I noticed about The Great Global Warming Swindle is how similar it is to The Greenhouse Conspiracy, broadcast 17 years before. The two programmes made the same claims, using some of the samecontributors. They were now a little greyer and fatter, but they repeated their line almost verbatim.[...] The Great Global Warming Swindle looks like free, undisclosed propaganda for coal and oil firms.
Og ikke le nå. Men, er det noen som er overrasket over at filmen prøver å vise at det var varmere i den såkalte Medieval Warm Period enn i dag?.....unnskyld, jeg klarer ikke la være å le....men er det noen som husker denne grafen? Her er en skjermdump fra filmen:
Filmens forslitte løgner blir og oppklart her. Og bare for å gå rett i strupen på løgnene: Sjekk grafen som dukker opp ca 13.32 ut i filmen. En graf filmen legger mye vekt på.Grafen som tilsynelatende viser at most of the rising temperature accured before 1940 - during a period when industrial production was relatively insignificant....GRAFEN ER DIKTET OPP. DEN ER EN BLANK LØGN.
Vår venn YouTube-bruker potholer-54 oppklarer denne blanke løgnen ca 04.25 min ut i videoen over. Den neste videoen her oppklarer flere av løgnene til “feelies”-folkene og deres barnslige lek med tallstørrelser:
"Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology."
La oss se hva Ball mener om andre emner, som tja..f.eks evolusjon?
"Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility."
Har de virkelig ikke andre folk å hente inn enn crank-eksperter og kreasjonister? Legg igjen merke til at Ball blir titulert som professor i klimaforskning selv om han, som vi har sett, IKKE er dette. Winnipeg har ikke engang et professorat i klimavitenskap.
Her er en full oppklaring av alle løgnene i filmen og misbruket av forskere:
Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptics
Ian Plimer's work of climate fiction is riddled with schoolboy errors the Spectator appears prepared to believe.
La oss se hva Ball mener om andre emner, som tja..f.eks evolusjon?
"Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility."
Har de virkelig ikke andre folk å hente inn enn crank-eksperter og kreasjonister? Legg igjen merke til at Ball blir titulert som professor i klimaforskning selv om han, som vi har sett, IKKE er dette. Winnipeg har ikke engang et professorat i klimavitenskap.
Her er en full oppklaring av alle løgnene i filmen og misbruket av forskere:
Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptics
Seldom has a book been more cleanly murdered by scientists than Ian Plimer's Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth, which purports to show that manmade climate change is nonsense. Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data. Here is what the reviews have said.
"Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear."
Here are a few examples of the nonsense in this book (thanks mostly to Tim Lambert at Scienceblogs):
1. Plimer uses a graph, without attribution, produced for the Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4. The programme altered the timeline, creating the false impression that most of the rise in temperature last century took place before 1940. After an outcry by scientists, subsequent editions of the programme corrected the timeline. But Plimer leaves the graph – and its convenient error – intact.
2. He claims that Arctic sea ice is growing. Oh no it isn't.
3. He claims that Mount Pinatubo released "very large quantities of chloroflourocarbons, the gases that destroy the ozone layer." It didn't.
4. Like the Great Global Warming Swindle (from which several of the claims in his book appear to originate), he claims that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. In fact humans produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
5. He claims that only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans. In fact the pre-industrial concentration was roughly 280 parts per million. Human activities have now raised this to 387ppm. Work it out for yourself.
6. He says "it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity". As David Karoly points out, "burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope 12C and reduced 13C and essentially no 14C, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen": in other words you can ascribe the increase directly to human activity.
7. Professor Michael Ashley noticed in Plimer's book: "an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite. It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis."
There are dozens like this. Ian Enting shows that Plimer:
- misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 13 occasions as well as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC reports;
- has at least 17 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited sources;
- has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of something other than what Plimer claims and many others where data are misrepresented;
- has at least 6 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited source.
The Guardians George Monbiot utfordret forfatteren med noen drepende spørsmål. Han trakk seg!!
Professor Ian Plimer, author of the book Heaven and Earth, is the new champion of the climate change deniers. After I wrote an article attacking his claims, he challenged me to a public debate. Last week I told him that I would accept his challenge as long as he accepted mine. I would take part in a face-to-face debate with him as long as he agreed to write precise and specific responses to his critics' points - in the form of numbered questions that I would send him - for publication on the Guardian's website. Plimer rejected my challenge.
1. The first graph in your book (Figure 1, page 11) shows global temperatures, as measured by the Hadley Centre (HadCRUT), falling by 0.3C between 2007 and 2008. In reality the fall recorded by the HadCRUT3 data series is 0.089C.
How do you explain the discrepancy between the HadCRUT3 figure and your claim?
2. Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945, and was followed by a period of sharp cooling. You cite no source for it, but it closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin's film The Great Global Warming Swindle. Durkin later changed the graph after it was shown to have been distorted by extending the timeline.
In your book it remains unchanged.
a. What is the source for the graph you used?
b. Where was it first published?
c. Whose figures does it use?
3. You maintain that:
"the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase."
(page 25)
Again you do not provide a reference. As you can see here, the Met Office HadCRUT3 series shows that this claim is untrue.
a. Please give the source for your claim.
b. How do you reconcile it with the published data?
4. In your discussion of global temperature trends, you maintain that:
"NASA now states that […] the warmest year was 1934." (p99)
a. Are you aware that this applies only to the United States?
b. Was this a mistake or did you deliberately confuse these two datasets?
5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that:
"the sea ice has expanded" (p198).
Again, you give no reference.
a. Please give a source for this claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?
Ian Plimer's volcano claims vaporise under questioning on Australian
To andre eksempler på hvordan debunke klimaløgner og myter ved hjelp av oppdatert klimavitenskap, kritisk tenking og kildekritikk:
To andre eksempler på hvordan debunke klimaløgner og myter ved hjelp av oppdatert klimavitenskap, kritisk tenking og kildekritikk:
Fortsetter i DEL 3
INNHOLD DEL 1:
1. Innledning
2. Klima som politikk
3. Stammetenkning og psykologi
4. Kildekritikk og kritisk tenkning
5. Den Vitenskapelige Metode
6. De beste bevisene for menneskeskapt global oppvarming og at det er C02 som er hovedårsaken
7. De vanligste klimamytene
8. Konsensus
9. Konsekvenser av klimaendringer
INNHOLD DEL 1:
1. Innledning
2. Klima som politikk
3. Stammetenkning og psykologi
4. Kildekritikk og kritisk tenkning
5. Den Vitenskapelige Metode
6. De beste bevisene for menneskeskapt global oppvarming og at det er C02 som er hovedårsaken
7. De vanligste klimamytene
8. Konsensus
9. Konsekvenser av klimaendringer
INNHOLD DEL 3
12. Klimarealistene
13. Alle klimaløgners mor - Tankesmien The Heartland Institute
14. Tilbake til Klimarealistene
15. PragerU og kreasjonisten bak
16. Klimarealistene anmelder bok
17. Konklusjon så langt
12. Klimarealistene
13. Alle klimaløgners mor - Tankesmien The Heartland Institute
14. Tilbake til Klimarealistene
15. PragerU og kreasjonisten bak
16. Klimarealistene anmelder bok
17. Konklusjon så langt
18. Klimafornekting i en konspirasjonskultur
19. Klimafornektingens røtter
20. Klimafornekting fra fossil brensel-industrien og hvordan den kopierer tobaksindustriens metoder
21. Sponsorene - den enorme pengestøtten bak klimaløgnene og taktikkene som brukes for å spre dem
22. Krigen mot vitenskapen
23. Kreasjonistene
24. Klima-kreasjonistene
25. Oppsummering
26. Avslutning
27. Bonus.
28. Faktaverktøy / Linker
20. Klimafornekting fra fossil brensel-industrien og hvordan den kopierer tobaksindustriens metoder
21. Sponsorene - den enorme pengestøtten bak klimaløgnene og taktikkene som brukes for å spre dem
22. Krigen mot vitenskapen
23. Kreasjonistene
24. Klima-kreasjonistene
25. Oppsummering
26. Avslutning
27. Bonus.
28. Faktaverktøy / Linker
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar