Posted by Tina
You won’t hear this in the news so I thought I’d share. Tom Blumer of PJ Media recently visited the offices of two Republican Senators; both were at home in their hometown digs. The purpose of his sojourn was to observe protesters of the newly formed Organizing for Action, the team that was formerly Obama’s campaign support system. This group laughingly insists it is an independent organization. (Why will they not proudly claim their intent? Oh yeah…tax free status!) Their mission on this day was to confront the Republican Congressmen about their green credentials and deliver a punch to the stomach!
Blumer found a tiny remnant of the organization; a couple of dozen people showed up late in one office and only one college student showed in the other:
Keep in mind that on any given business day, 60,000 people are working in downtown Cincinnati, a large plurality of whom could easily have taken an hour-long lunch to be on hand for such a momentous occasion, and who would still have had plenty of time to grab a bite to eat before getting back to work. …
…Massie’s OFA visitor was a know-it-all college student who arrived ten minutes early and gave the congressman’s district director a small, insulting “Climate Deniers Trophy.” The kid surely thought he had delivered a body blow to an oil-guzzling Neanderthal.
Turns out, Congressman Massie’s footprint is of a size to envy for any climate change freak…compared to Al Gore he’s an enviro saint!
I know it’s early yet, but it isn’t looking good for Obama’s supporter efforts. Something has gone very wrong in the organizers favorite organization. And Hillary is counting on these people to plow a path for her presidential bid in the coming months, too. There have been several organized events to support the Democrat agenda lately but attendance has been a complete joke at all of them (links are provided in the Blumer article linked above).
Point of information from the article for our friend Chris:
Unfortunately for Team Obama, the climate hasn’t been cooperating with their corrupted “science” for quite some time. Despite attempts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to spin it as yet another disastrous year for warming, calendar 2012 was among the coolest so far this century. More importantly, the warmists’ meme, which is that most of the warmest years since records have been kept have occurred since the turn of the century, is more than a little suspect. NOAA, in a possible move to increase the credibility of future results, is closing 600 “hot” weather stations, many of which were apparently placed in locations deliberately designed to generate artificially high temperatures to rig overall results.
OFA insists that “97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real.” What a crock. In February, James Taylor at Forbes pointed to a peer-reviewed study which showed, in Taylor’s words, that “only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis.”
A word to our readers; climate “deniers” are just ordinary citizens (and politicians) with a few reasonable expectations:
1. A science community that works and reports as scientists did when Einstein was alive…with integrity, honor, and a commitment to discovery (NO TRICKS).
2. Government policy that is balanced; policy that will support the discovery and use of viable alternative energy sources without killing the economy, businesses, and jobs.
3. Conserve the environment without stomping on the rights of private citizens…including property rights.
4.Take an “all of the above approach” and let the private sector choose the winners.
5. Quit blowing smoke!
The citizens of this free country have done a great job picking winners and losers when they have been allowed to participate freely and without manipulative and oppressive overreaching by the big government animals in Washington. The time is ripe: to reclaim that right and our freedom, to restore a vibrant private sector and an abundance of jobs, and to reset our government on a (minimal) path of service to the people!
We will do it if the people have had it with transformers, organizers, and destroyers.
OFA is, at least for now, very weak. 2014 is almost here. Time to get rolling, citizens!
Tina quotes from PJ Media, a Super Reliable and Objective Source which is So Much Better than the Evil Mean Nasty No-Good Lame-Stream Media:
“OFA insists that “97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real.” What a crock. In February, James Taylor at Forbes pointed to a peer-reviewed study which showed, in Taylor’s words, that “only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis.”
Show of hands: Who believes Tina did any research on this claim before passing it along?
*crickets*
Google is your friend, Tina. Had you used it, you could have easily found that the authors of the study cited by James Taylor have accused Taylor of completely warping their conclusions. (This should surprise no one familiar with James Taylor or his employer, the Heartland Institute, which is paid handsomely by oil companies to lie about climate change, just as they were paid handsomely by the tobacco industry in the ’90s to lie about the effects of second-hand smoke.)
The study did not dispute that the majority of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming. How could it have? The study only examined geoscientists and engineers, most of whom work in the oil industry, in Alberta. The authors make it clear that it is not a representative study. It does not focus on scientists whose expertise is in climate science.
Furthermore, the 36% of geoscientists and engineers who said that anthropogenic global warming is real represent the MAJORITY of those polled. The respondents’ answers generally conformed to 5 general frames, as Scienceblogs explains:
“What they found was there are 5 general “frames” used by respondents that their answers conformed to. The most common response was that global warming is real, and we need to act with regulation to address the problem (at 36%, the number quoted by Taylor to suggest there is no consensus), another 5% expressed doubt at the cause but agreed green house gases needed to be regulated. The second most common responses were “it’s nature” or “it’s a eco-regulatory conspiracy” and these responses showed a great deal of hostility in language towards environmentalism, proponents of global warming, liberalism etc. These came in at about 34% of responses and were more common from older white males in the higher tiers of the oil industry corporate structure. The most common remaining frame was a “fatalist” frame (17%) which could take or leave the science because hey, we’re screwed no matter what we do.”
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/15/denialism-from-forbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/
In the Forbes article cited by PJMedia, James Taylor writes, “By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”
That’s the exact opposite of the truth. The majority believed that global warming is caused by man, not nature. A somewhat smaller group believed that nature was the main culprit. And the rest had more nuanced answers. Taylor either did not properly read the study and assumed scientists were left with only two options–“man-made” or not “man-made”–thus concluding that the 36% represented a minority; or he is simply lying. Either way, this should cast serious doubt against his credentials on this subject (as if that doubt doesn’t already exist given his history).
This is why you should actually read studies instead of articles quoting them, especially when those articles are written by people with a political agenda.
Here is the full comment by the authors of the study on Taylor’s article:
Dear Mr. Taylor –
Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.
First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.
In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.
All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.
But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!
We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.
Best regards,
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1363-1219-5279
That comment was posted six months ago. Taylor has not yet issued any correction to his piece or addressed the criticism from the authors toward his misrepresentation of their study.
Now, we can draw this out–you can post some kind of weird defense that doesn’t address the actual criticism, make assertions without backing them up with facts, force me to show you the same data over and over again until, forty comments later, you finally make the smallest concession that what you posted here might not be 100% accurate. But aren’t you *tired* of that game? I know I am. Just this once, can you admit that the information you posted was erroneous, and that you should have done more research on it before passing it along to your viewers as fact?
Again: the study did not show what Taylor or PJMedia says it does. It did not show that a minority of geoscientists and engineers don’t believe in man-made global warming. It showed that among a particular group of geoscientists and engineers working in the oil indusrty in Alberta, a slight majority believed man-made global warming IS happening, and examined the varied responses from all respondents. It does not in any way contradict previous studies showing that about 90-97% of peer-reviewed climate scientists believe in man-caused global warming.
So…please. Just this once. Admit you were wrong.
Chris: “Tina quotes from PJ Media, a Super Reliable and Objective Source which is So Much Better than the Evil Mean Nasty No-Good Lame-Stream Media”
Why yes, Chris…thank you for saying so.
You were a mere twinkle when the Lame-Stream Media dominated, totally controlling the narrative of American politics and elections so you have no experience to guide you or discover appreciation for the prompting of entities like PJ Media.
Those interested in learning more about PJ Media will find all you need to know here. there mission is honorable and their following extensive:
A quick peek at the BIO’s of the blogging group will show they are an interesting group of well qualified and accomplished American citizens. One example is Bridget Johnson whose bio reads:
When making comparisons education and experience are important. I’d place the people at PJ Media in contention any day of the week. Another way to measure credibility is through success. I think they stack up there too, especially in terms of ratings and growth or decline. Chris have you been informed of the failings of the Lame-Stream media in this regard? Their problem, I believe, is they forgot what their purpose as journalists, and even news talkers, was supposed to be…they became very partisan to the point of being cheerleaders for Obama during the last elections and the designated destroyers of Democrat opposition. They are called the fourth estate but they turned their backs on that responsibility decades ago.
Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up for people who might casually come across Post Scripts and wonder about your mean spirited remark.
Chris quotes: “…the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change…”
This is another intentionally vague statement. These people must stand around figuring out what they can say that will be true but deceptive. People from both sides agree that humans have an impact. the argument is over how much of an impact and whether it is worth the massive taxation and Draconian measures to kill oil and coal.
Forbes
Read the entire article; it cites up to date news and information from scientists all across the globe.
Since you like peer review try this also from Forbes:
As for the rest of your comment may I suggest you go google yourself.
I warn you, it won’t be a satisfying experience unless you make it your intention to challenge your own belief systems.
You have become a leftist cliche. I’ve had it up to my eyeballs after decades of listening to the yammering of people like you pretending to have all the answers. This one is a doozy:
When all of the peer review is done by global warming zealots it isn’t surprising to find this constructed statistic.
But it’s just another trick of language. It doesn’t say all qualified scientists, just peer-reviewed scientists. Marxist propaganda believers love to do this crap.
Broaden your horizons a bit…do some reading over at Watts Up With That. Anthony Watts has become known throughout the world and is, I believe, actually dedicated to science…where ever the science takes him…unlike man made global warming zealots.
Tina,
Please address the claim by the authors of the study cited by James Taylor that Taylor misrepresented their study.
NO! I see no reason to do so. Warming zealots, leftists all, have proven themselves to be liars and cheats. Those who have become apologists for them do not look at all of the evidence only what will prove their lies and further their political goals.
The two articles from Forbes cited by me above, if read in their entirety especially, should answer all questions anyone might have about current scientific opinions on global warming.
Mercifully…We’re done!
Tina: “NO! I see no reason to do so. Warming zealots, leftists all, have proven themselves to be liars and cheats.”
Therefore, it is perfectly OK for global warming skeptics to lie and cheat, as well.
You realize that’s the implication you’re making, right? That you don’t have to care when anyone on your side lies or misrepresents anything, because you’re right and they are wrong?
I showed you how the authors of the study cited by James Taylor were misrepresented. Their study did not–could not–dispute the fact that the consensus of scientists believe that humans are causing global warming. Taylor claimed their study did contradict the consensus, and his misrepresentation was repeated by PJMedia and many other conservative blogs, and then by you. This despite the fact that the authors corrected Taylor six months ago.
Since you have no valid defense of this lie, you decided to change the argument entirely, essentially saying, “Well, the 90-97% statistic is bogus because peer review has been corrupted by leftists, booga booga.”
But if the consensus doesn’t matter, then what was the point of lying about the Lefsrud study’s conclusions about the scientific consensus? You, Taylor, and the rest of the right-wing echo chamber who uncritically passed on this little nugget obviously thought it was relevant to mention what a majority of scientists believed when you thought it might help your case. But as soon as you find out that the study doesn’t actually help your cause at all, it’s “Consensus, schmonsensus?” That is so dishonest.
If the argument against man-made global warming is so strong, Tina, you wouldn’t need to do this. You would feel confident making small concessions, like the simple fact the article you linked to was dishonest, because you’d know that the rest of your case held up. Instead you act like if you admit to one mistake, your entire argument will fall like a house of cards.
The intellectually honest, Christian thing to do at this point would be to admit you were wrong. But I’ve long since abandoned hope that you will do the honest, Christian thing.
For all his efforts, Chris gets the “Bloviator of the Week” award.
Too bad we can’t harness all the hot air that’s been spewed about climate change . . . .
Tina, Todays politics have no interaction with morals, and what we need now is healing from a divided country, Thanks to you and Jack for trying!
The whole aim of Liberal politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Chris: “You realize that’s the implication you’re making, right?
Chris I have linked to several sites that include information from well known, credentialed scientists. You choose not to recognize them or their findings. Fine. You fail to consider the possibility that global warming zealots manipulate the language to fool people. Also Fine. You are not interested in a discussion, you are interested in ramming what you think down the throats of others.
Unfortunately, all of this makes your extreme criticism of me ridiculous…and I see no reason to indulge you in this game playing.
“If the argument against man-made global warming is so strong, Tina, you wouldn’t need to do this.”
If leftist warming zealots were interested in science, rather than grants, position, power, and politics we wouldn’t be having this nutty exchange.
You have been brainwashed, not educated.
“…You would feel confident making small concessions…”
Oh, you mean just as you make a great show of making small concessions in order to give the impression that you are open minded and honest? Horse feathers! You are as phony as the warming zealots whose word you take as gospel! Consensus is BS in science, Chris…BS!!!!
“The intellectually honest, Christian thing to do at this point would be to admit you were wrong.”
I’d suggest you take your own advice.
I leave our readers with the following links and quotes:
Paper Suggest Man-Made CO2 Is Not the Driver of Global Warming – WUWT
Wall Street Journal
Posted at Breitbart
Intellectual tyranny…yep…that’s what you defend and by association engage in too, Chris. You have no interest in truth only bullying people to think you have all of the facts when clearly YOU DO NOT!!
I went back on my word…once again I am done.
J. and Harold I appreciate (more than you will ever know) your thoughts and humor. You lighten the load, put a smile on my face, and give me the energy to keep going.
Some crazy twist of fate and love of my fellow man brought me to this little hobby and I really do love doing it…but it could get me down if not for your comments and support.
I don’t deny climate change, I deny man made climate change. I also deny that man can do anything to stop the change.
The climate has been in change from way before man was here but Chris and his gang don’t want to discuss that.
They want nothing to do with the fact that the sun runs in cycles of hot and cold and that is what causes change on the planets. At one time in the past Mars had water on it and now it doesn’t. Guess what? You wont find a single big block gas burning engine or flagellating bovine on Mars.
Did you know Egypt was a sea millions of years ago? Yep and we/man were not here to keep it or change it (as if we could). Did you know the island of Manhattan was once under hundreds of feet of ice? Now at that time I think man was around so maybe it was the dreaded wood fires of Neanderthals (sp?) that caused the melting of those glaciers. In my opinion we would be better off with NY under hundreds of feet of ice.
Notice how the Left treats “climate change” like the treat themselves? Back in the 70’s it was global cooling that was going to kill us within 10 or 20 years. Ok, then it was global warming that was going to kill us, according to Al Gore (back like 15 years) in 10 years. So now it’s climate change.
It is a fraud/scam just like liberalism,socialism,communism,progressivism. Anything that needs to change it’s name every few years but sings the same song is bullshit! If we take the money out if “climate change” we would never hear about it again.
Petty little people need the money and the power the money brings to feel like they are worth something.
Terrific information Toby, too bad it will fall on deaf ears.
It would be one thing if the hysteria we hear from people like Chris was an indication that their beliefs were being challenged, at least then there would be room for discovery and discussion.
Unfortunately global warming has become a treasure that zealots lock away and protect as if it were their very lives.
I gotta hope there are more of us than there are of them 😉 or if not the more there will be as truth is discovered.
The trend does seem to be moving away from zealots and opportunists and toward strong science:
Ihe following excerpt from a press release issued in 2011 by the National Association of Scholars sums up my position well:
And you are right on the money about recent cooling and natural patterns.
Global warming, a PC concept made up by a money-maker in the guise of a Liberal activist,
There ain’t no answer. There ain’t gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That’s the answer.
We all know what a hypocrite Al Gore is. And Obama is only pushing his green agenda to put big bucks in friend’s pockets, like the owner of Solyndra. Well, those of us who haven’t fallen for the liberal’s lying agenda do anyway.
And we know who walks the walk and lives in a home that preserves our planet instead of living in a house that in one month uses more energy than an average family uses in a whole year. All while writing books telling everyone else to not do as I do, but do as I say. He just needs the gullible to keep buying those books he writes in that big house all alone now.
Al Gore’s Home or George Bush’s Ranch:
Gore’s house – “The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.”
Bush’s house – “This house incorporates every ‘green’ feature current home construction can provide. …The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.”
http://granthammond.com/homes/al-gores-home-george-bushs-ranch/
Obama Fundraises With Players in Solyndra Scandal:
“SAN FRANCISCO — At an exclusive re-election fundraiser tonight, President Obama hobnobbed with 60 of his wealthiest supporters, including two figures at the center of the Solyndra loan controversy.
Steve Westly, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, was one of the first to raise red flags about the administration’s support for a $500 million loan to Solyndra, the solar energy start-up that later went bankrupt. He wrote directly to senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett in 2010 to raise concerns about the company’s viability ahead of the president’s high-profile visit that year.
Matt Rogers, a former senior adviser at the Department of Energy, played a key role in approving Solyndra’s loan as part of the stimulus plan.
Both men were spotted by White House print pool reporter Darren Samuelsohn of Politico at the Piedmont, Calif., home of Quinn Delaney and Wayne Jordan, who were hosting the $35,800-a-head event.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-fundraises-with-players-in-solyndra-scandal/
Al Gore’s Golden Years:
“The almost president has become the ultimate Davos Man, a moral entrepreneur and richer than Mitt Romney.”
http://nymag.com/news/features/al-gore-2013-5/