LMAO....the 97% claim was taken from ONE study!!!

[CrusaderFrank]

I think you hit the nail on the head, jc.

Curry was impressed that the APS used in house expertise to assess what the statement should say. And then pissed off when the politically influenced leadership decided to ignore it.

here is the latest letter disapproving of the APS position -

Samuel Aronson
President, American Physical Society
One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740-3844

Dear Dr. Aronson,

As three members of the American Physical Society, we are writing on behalf of the nearly 300 other members who signed our 2009 and 2010 petitions to the APS taking strong exception to the 2007 Statement on Climate Change. Those petitions called for an objective assessment of the underlying science, leading to a more scientifically defensible Statement.

We wish to call attention to important issues relating to the processes that led to the 2007 Statement and the Draft 2015 Statement. In developing both the 2007 Statement and the current Draft, the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) failed to follow traditional APS Bylaws. In particular, regarding APS statements the Bylaws state: “The Chair of POPA has the responsibility for ensuring that the statement draft incorporates appropriate APS member expertise” (XVI.B.2), and, “Anyone, particularly POPA and Council members, who can reasonably be perceived to have a conflict of interest, shall recuse themselves from all aspects of the Statement process, including drafting, commentary, and voting. The President of the APS shall be the final arbiter of potential conflicts of interest” (XVI.E). Examples of relevant process exceptions include:

1. APS email records show that the original 2007 Statement was rewritten “on the fly, over lunch” by a small group of firebrands who arbitrarily inserted themselves in the process, thereby overruling the prerogatives of POPA and the APS Council. Thus, in "reaffirming" the 2007 Statement, the current Draft is referring to one that was produced by a bogus process and led to much ridicule of the APS, especially for its use of the infamous “incontrovertible.” In an attempt to disown this public relations fiasco, in 2012 APS (presumably POPA) quietly introduced a new paragraph break in the 2007 Statement so as to alter the original intent of the passage. Thus, the description of the Statement presented today as “Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007” is untrue and a violation of APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct (APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct paragraph two).

2. In the process of developing a Draft 2015 Statement, APS failed to consult any of at least 300 members, including Nobel Laureates, NAS members, and many Fellows, who were deeply dissatisfied with the 2007 Statement. Thus POPA deliberately failed to seek and incorporate interested and appropriate member input, as required in the Bylaws.

3. In the process of developing a Draft 2015 Statement, POPA failed to take into account the findings of the broad-based workshop, chaired by Steve Koonin, which faithfully and expertly executed its charge to assess the state of the science in global warming. The Koonin committee did the APS proud, conducting the only serious review of global warming science by a major American scientific society that we know of, while simultaneously realizing the objectives of our 2009 and 2010 petitions. Having thus advanced the interests of physics and the Society, POPA subsequently ignored the Koonin workshop and its product. POPA once again returned to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as its sole source of authority on the science, thereby abrogating its responsibility to the membership to properly conduct independent scientific assessments.

4. The Chair of the POPA committee has failed to identify serious conflicts of interests by its members. For example, a few years ago, one member of POPA, representing himself as an agent of a politically active nongovernmental organization, demanded that a Cleveland-area television station fire its meteorologist for expressing some doubt about IPCC statements on global warming. On every scientific point, the meteorologist was right, and we are glad to say that he retained his job.

These process exceptions by POPA cloud the legitimacy, objectivity, and content of the current Draft. In considering this, along with the strong basis for continuing investigations of unresolved key scientific questions in the global warming issue, it is clear that the best course of APS action is simply to archive the 2007 Statement without further attempts to replace it. We ask that you take this step in the interests of the Society and its membership.

We trust that you will share this letter with the APS Council. This is a very serious matter, and we intend to pursue it. We look forward to your response. Please respond to Roger Cohen, [address redacted].

Sincerely,

Roger W. Cohen
Laurence I. Gould
William Happer



c. Presidential-Line Officers:
Malcolm R. Beasley, Past President
Laura Greene, Vice President
Homer Neal, President Elect

Finally! Real scientists are seeing the AGWCult for the embarrassment it is

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think you hit the nail on the head, jc.

Curry was impressed that the APS used in house expertise to assess what the statement should say. And then pissed off when the politically influenced leadership decided to ignore it.

here is the latest letter disapproving of the APS position -

Samuel Aronson
President, American Physical Society
One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740-3844

Dear Dr. Aronson,

As three members of the American Physical Society, we are writing on behalf of the nearly 300 other members who signed our 2009 and 2010 petitions to the APS taking strong exception to the 2007 Statement on Climate Change. Those petitions called for an objective assessment of the underlying science, leading to a more scientifically defensible Statement.

We wish to call attention to important issues relating to the processes that led to the 2007 Statement and the Draft 2015 Statement. In developing both the 2007 Statement and the current Draft, the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) failed to follow traditional APS Bylaws. In particular, regarding APS statements the Bylaws state: “The Chair of POPA has the responsibility for ensuring that the statement draft incorporates appropriate APS member expertise” (XVI.B.2), and, “Anyone, particularly POPA and Council members, who can reasonably be perceived to have a conflict of interest, shall recuse themselves from all aspects of the Statement process, including drafting, commentary, and voting. The President of the APS shall be the final arbiter of potential conflicts of interest” (XVI.E). Examples of relevant process exceptions include:

1. APS email records show that the original 2007 Statement was rewritten “on the fly, over lunch” by a small group of firebrands who arbitrarily inserted themselves in the process, thereby overruling the prerogatives of POPA and the APS Council. Thus, in "reaffirming" the 2007 Statement, the current Draft is referring to one that was produced by a bogus process and led to much ridicule of the APS, especially for its use of the infamous “incontrovertible.” In an attempt to disown this public relations fiasco, in 2012 APS (presumably POPA) quietly introduced a new paragraph break in the 2007 Statement so as to alter the original intent of the passage. Thus, the description of the Statement presented today as “Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007” is untrue and a violation of APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct (APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct paragraph two).

2. In the process of developing a Draft 2015 Statement, APS failed to consult any of at least 300 members, including Nobel Laureates, NAS members, and many Fellows, who were deeply dissatisfied with the 2007 Statement. Thus POPA deliberately failed to seek and incorporate interested and appropriate member input, as required in the Bylaws.

3. In the process of developing a Draft 2015 Statement, POPA failed to take into account the findings of the broad-based workshop, chaired by Steve Koonin, which faithfully and expertly executed its charge to assess the state of the science in global warming. The Koonin committee did the APS proud, conducting the only serious review of global warming science by a major American scientific society that we know of, while simultaneously realizing the objectives of our 2009 and 2010 petitions. Having thus advanced the interests of physics and the Society, POPA subsequently ignored the Koonin workshop and its product. POPA once again returned to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as its sole source of authority on the science, thereby abrogating its responsibility to the membership to properly conduct independent scientific assessments.

4. The Chair of the POPA committee has failed to identify serious conflicts of interests by its members. For example, a few years ago, one member of POPA, representing himself as an agent of a politically active nongovernmental organization, demanded that a Cleveland-area television station fire its meteorologist for expressing some doubt about IPCC statements on global warming. On every scientific point, the meteorologist was right, and we are glad to say that he retained his job.

These process exceptions by POPA cloud the legitimacy, objectivity, and content of the current Draft. In considering this, along with the strong basis for continuing investigations of unresolved key scientific questions in the global warming issue, it is clear that the best course of APS action is simply to archive the 2007 Statement without further attempts to replace it. We ask that you take this step in the interests of the Society and its membership.

We trust that you will share this letter with the APS Council. This is a very serious matter, and we intend to pursue it. We look forward to your response. Please respond to Roger Cohen, [address redacted].

Sincerely,

Roger W. Cohen
Laurence I. Gould
William Happer



c. Presidential-Line Officers:
Malcolm R. Beasley, Past President
Laura Greene, Vice President
Homer Neal, President Elect

Can you imagine how hard the scientists who signed that letters must be laughing at being called "Deniers!" by total dipshits like Old Rocks and Crick?

 

[jc456]

By the way, the Hawks win !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stephanie]

Well Staph, you people deny obvious facts, you are deniers. And, when in the face of all the evidence, you insist that the President was not born in Hawaii, birther is the nicest thing you can be called.

As the changes in the climate become more evident to all, the willful ignorance and lies of you 'Conservatives' will become more and more evident to all citizens, and that will reflect on the rest of your agenda. You wish to live in an alternative reality, don't expect to be given the reins of government. Most of us do not care for the idea of the mentally incompetent leading the nation.

Deniers is an AGWCult secret handshake word, its how they can identify themselves as fellow cult members.

Check through all the annals is scientific history, you won't find a single scientist in any field calling skeptics "deniers"

just like the word birther wasn't around until that nasty Progressive Obama. Or this 97% "consensus" of Scientist on Globull warming AKA when warming wasn't happening they changed it to: climate change. I mean seriously

 

[skookerasbil]

What you have here is two kinds of people............who embrace AGW. One type is a hard line progressive who knows well that the science is rigged and a pillar of the strategy to destroy the capitalistic system via carbon taxes. They know the enormous costs as part of the scheme to increase the herd of the underclass ( see Plato, Hobbes, More ). Then you have the hopelessly duped zombie's who automatically buy anything in science. These people think climate scientists are in it for the environment. These people don't think there are any special interests involved. They see proof of doctored data.............doesn't matter to them. They see prediction after prediction fall flat on their face. Doesn't matter. They see a blatant change in strategy from the climate change institution changing its mantra to fit the need to dupe the public ( global warming > climate change ). Doesn't matter. They KNOW the 97% is a complete fallacy. Doesn't matter. Its the blind leading the blind. Why do you think "the religion" is now standard dogma in the United States? duh. Hopelessly...................duped.................zombies.

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way, the Hawks win !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1 dude..........I hate Tampa. Hate Johnson. Loved when Seabrook ran his ass over last night!!! WIN

 

[skookerasbil]

duh


ClimateGate The Fix is In RealClearPolitics


still laughable to this day...........and not one single climate change k00k batted an eyelash!!

 

[rightwinger]

There is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to piss off conservatives

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Im laughing my balls off.........the whole 97% claim? These frauds took this from one single study that is humongously flawed. But that doesn't matter to these frauds.

Climate change Mr. Obama 97 percent of experts is a bogus number Fox News

The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May, 2013. The paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.





ghey

LMAO too - the climate change deniers all work for the oil industry.

 

[Stephanie]

I refuse to follow anyone who has to go around calling People who doesn't agree them, stupid names they made up to try and SHAME THEM into bowing to them

 

[Stephanie]

here's a few more reasons why I refuse to follow this "Scientist as the new G-ds" we all need to bow down to them

SNIP:

• Environmentalism

5 More Things Environmentalists Got Wrong




By Robert Tracinski
June 2, 2015
.


seven big failed environmentalist predictions, from global cooling to the population bomb (which the New York Times, always on the cutting edge, has just noticed was a complete bust). But it’s not only the big scientific theories they’ve gotten wrong. When science gets harnessed for a political cause, it tends to produce a running series of oversold theories that don’t bear up under further examination.

Here are five examples that recently crossed my desk.


1) Electric cars aren’t all that “green.”
Electric cars, like the ones produced by Elon Musk’s Tesla, a darling of the environmentalist crowd, are not the first step to a post-industrial utopia. They are a product of heavy industry and are resource-intensive and energy-intensive. I’m not just referring to the “long tailpipe,” in which the energy used in an electric car spews its exhaust through the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant hundreds of miles away. I’m also referring to reports like this one.

Tesla plans to produce two types of battery at the facility that is taking shape in the desert and so far the exact specification of the lithium-ion power units is being kept a close secret. The company currently uses batteries sourced from Panasonic to power its S-model cars. These batteries use a cathode that is comprised mainly of lithium, nickel, cobalt, and aluminum oxide. According to Mr. Musk, the company will use a more powerful battery for the home grid, which will utilize nickel, manganese and cobalt oxide for its cathode.

Should the concept capture the imagination of Americans who are increasingly conscious of reducing their carbon footprint demand for these crucial elements could skyrocket in addition to the already robust global demand for lithium, nickel, and copper. Major mining companies are already “future proofing” their businesses for climate change by focusing more investment into commodities that will be required by the renewable energy industry.

According to research by the broker Macquarie, Tesla alone may require up to 10,000 tons per year of cobalt, which accounts for around 10% of the current global market.

So Musk’s “green energy” efforts are spurring a boom in mining, particularly for heavy metals. And Tesla is still just a tiny niche automaker producing vanity vehicles for the upper middle class.

This also allows us to predict that if the electric cars ever actually become convenient and affordable for the masses—which is still a very long way off—environmentalists will suddenly discover all of the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy metals that are being stripped out of the Earth to build them, then combined with various chemical concoctions and distributed carelessly on our roadways. And they will naturally decide that this can’t be permitted.

2) Global warming isn’t killing the bees.
Scientists have been investigating “colony collapse disorder,” a mysterious die-off of honey bees, and there was inevitable speculation that it might be caused by “climate change.” (The underlying quote in that link blames “the weather,” and as we are reminded every time there’s a really cold winter, “weather is not climate”—except, of course, when weather needs to be climate so it can shore up an environmentalist theory.)

Recently, scientists serendipitously discovered what looks like the actual cause of colony collapse: the spread of a parasitic fly that attacks the bees and uses them to grow its own larvae.

A fly (Apocephalus borealis) had inserted its eggs into the bees, using their bodies as a home for its developing larvae. And the invaders had somehow led the bees from their hives to their deaths.

The fly is not spread, as far as anyone can tell, by warmer weather. (And even if it were, global temperatures have been flat for the past 15 to 20 years.) Instead, it seems to be spread by the increased transportation of honeybees across the country by beekeepers.

3) It’s not killing the frogs, either.

all of it here:
5 More Things Environmentalists Got Wrong

 

[skookerasbil]

And ummmm..........if the 97% claim is so universally accepted, as the climate crusaders claim...........why is it not mattering in the real world??

Im laughing my balls off.........the whole 97% claim? These frauds took this from one single study that is humongously flawed. But that doesn't matter to these frauds.

Climate change Mr. Obama 97 percent of experts is a bogus number Fox News

The 97 percent claim was taken from a study paper by Australian John Cook, Climate Communications Fellow for the Global change Institute at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May, 2013. The paper says nothing about the would-be dangers of climate change and it counts the number of publications, rather than the number of scientists, in support of human-made climate change. Never let facts get in the way of a good story.





ghey

LMAO too - the climate change deniers all work for the oil industry.

LOL.....you are one stoopid mofu s0n!!! Who gets to your age and still has such a pronounced level of naïve?


So I guess the entire American public has been bought off by big oil?? Is that why nobody is giving a flying fuck about global warming? Every poll shows it s0n........take your pick. The president talks about it daily...........still nobody cares.


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html'][/URL]

 

[rightwinger]

I refuse to follow anyone who has to go around calling People who doesn't agree them, stupid names they made up to try and SHAME THEM into bowing to them

Actually, it goes beyond stupid names

It goes to peer reviewed climactic studies, evaluation of hypothesis, development and refinement of new theories

All of which overwhelmingly point to manmade climate change

 

[skookerasbil]

One study!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One study!!!

Matches the one tree ring for the hockey stick graph

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have picked up the tactics of the Cigarettes do not cause Cancer campaign

Deny, claim there is not enough evidence, claim conspiracy

 

[skookerasbil]

Republicans have picked up the tactics of the Cigarettes do not cause Cancer campaign

Deny, claim there is not enough evidence, claim conspiracy

s0n.........sock puppets are ghey.


Coming up on 100,000 posts s0n??!!! Holy fuck...........whats up with that?

 

[Stephanie]

Republicans have picked up the tactics of the Cigarettes do not cause Cancer campaign

Deny, claim there is not enough evidence, claim conspiracy

s0n.........sock puppets are ghey.


Coming up on 100,000 posts s0n??!!! Holy fuck...........whats up with that?

Notice he joined the same year Obama took office as President?
Paid Obot-Democrat goon? hummmmmmmmm

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, what I have noticed Staph, is that you are one ignorant wingnut. No, the 97% is not just from one study. Scientists are not as fucking stupid as the majority of people on this board. So, most of them accept the overwhelming evidence that we are shitting in the living room of our home. In the meantime, our 'Conservatives' are singing praises to the new smell in the house.

 

[jc456]

Well, what I have noticed Staph, is that you are one ignorant wingnut. No, the 97% is not just from one study. Scientists are not as fucking stupid as the majority of people on this board. So, most of them accept the overwhelming evidence that we are shitting in the living room of our home. In the meantime, our 'Conservatives' are singing praises to the new smell in the house.

link again:
Cooks 97 consensus disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors Watts Up With That

abstract:
"The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."