A letter to the United Nations titled “There is no climate emergency” presents a short list of claims about climate change that contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists. In addition, the letter boasts that it has been signed by “500 scientists and professionals.” However, only 10 identified themselves as experts in climate science and the rest include professionals in unrelated or non-technical fields.
Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.
Dr. Victor Venema explained: “The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity.”
Full debunk:
Letter signed by "500 scientists" relies on inaccurate claims about climate science
https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/l7n/500-har-underskrevet-pa-at-det-ikke-er-klimakrise-dette-sier-klimaforskere-om-oppropet
More than 500 people misunderstand climate change
Now, where do we remember those petitions and surveys from? What other polluter industry used the same tactics to sway the public?
And remember that other silly petition climate deniers loves to recycle?
Could it be the men behind that petion too, denied the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer? And later the link between CFCs and the ozone layer?
Frederick Seitz
[…] “in the 1980s, Seitz decided to become a shill for any corporation willing to pay him enough. He, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute (a right-wing think tank named after a famous liberal Democrat) in 1984 to hype Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program. One of the initial goals of the organization was to attack the work done by Carl Sagan and his colleagues on nuclear winter. During this time, he was also employed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and helped spread propaganda denying links between smoking and cancer. “
“In the early '90s, Seitz joined the board of another think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), headed by another physicist-turned-shill, S. Fred Singer. Singer and Seitz's career paths were mirror images. The two co-authored a few works together, denying the dangers of ozone depletion and global warming. Through the Marshall Institute, Seitz helped Arthur Robinson spread the bogus Oregon Petition of 30,000+ "scientists" who "disagreed with the consensus on global warming." The NAS repudiated him.”
Frederick Seitz - RationalWiki
Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Would 31,000+ scientists signing a petition rejecting climate change as unscientific, be considered a consensus?
Isn’t it remarkably, everytime science is under attack, how its the same corporate polluters, the same individuals, who raises their ugly heads? Every single time?
The same people who have claim the science of global warming is "not settled",
denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer,
coal smoke to acid rain,
and CFCs to the ozone hole.
What a coincidence ay?
What do you do if all the world's experts disagree with you? A decades old technique perfected by the tobacco industry is to manufacture the appearance of a continued debate through fake experts. Climate change is a complicated, multi-disciplinary science and yet many of the leading voices who purport to know better than the experts have never published a single piece of climate research.
Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.
Dr. Victor Venema explained: “The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity.”
Full debunk:
Letter signed by "500 scientists" relies on inaccurate claims about climate science
https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/l7n/500-har-underskrevet-pa-at-det-ikke-er-klimakrise-dette-sier-klimaforskere-om-oppropet
More than 500 people misunderstand climate change
Now, where do we remember those petitions and surveys from? What other polluter industry used the same tactics to sway the public?
And remember that other silly petition climate deniers loves to recycle?
Could it be the men behind that petion too, denied the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer? And later the link between CFCs and the ozone layer?
Frederick Seitz
[…] “in the 1980s, Seitz decided to become a shill for any corporation willing to pay him enough. He, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute (a right-wing think tank named after a famous liberal Democrat) in 1984 to hype Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program. One of the initial goals of the organization was to attack the work done by Carl Sagan and his colleagues on nuclear winter. During this time, he was also employed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and helped spread propaganda denying links between smoking and cancer. “
“In the early '90s, Seitz joined the board of another think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), headed by another physicist-turned-shill, S. Fred Singer. Singer and Seitz's career paths were mirror images. The two co-authored a few works together, denying the dangers of ozone depletion and global warming. Through the Marshall Institute, Seitz helped Arthur Robinson spread the bogus Oregon Petition of 30,000+ "scientists" who "disagreed with the consensus on global warming." The NAS repudiated him.”
Frederick Seitz - RationalWiki
Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Would 31,000+ scientists signing a petition rejecting climate change as unscientific, be considered a consensus?
Isn’t it remarkably, everytime science is under attack, how its the same corporate polluters, the same individuals, who raises their ugly heads? Every single time?
The same people who have claim the science of global warming is "not settled",
denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer,
coal smoke to acid rain,
and CFCs to the ozone hole.
What a coincidence ay?
What do you do if all the world's experts disagree with you? A decades old technique perfected by the tobacco industry is to manufacture the appearance of a continued debate through fake experts. Climate change is a complicated, multi-disciplinary science and yet many of the leading voices who purport to know better than the experts have never published a single piece of climate research.
"As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change".
Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar