"Fake Science Report Exposed" Topic

We took a close look at the Canadians signing off on the latest media scare claiming that 11,000 scientists agree that we face "untold suffering due to the climate crisis" unless things change fast.

YouTube link

Nice source, Mr. Myers. I would look up Ezra Levant and "Rebel News" on Wikileaks before I would be relying on this sort of sourcing.

Ezra Isaac Levant (born 1972) is a Canadian media personality, political activist, writer, and broadcaster. He is the founder and former publisher of the Western Standard, a former columnist for Sun Media, and former host of a daily program on the Sun News Network from the channel's inception in 2011 until its demise in 2015. In February 2015, he founded The Rebel Media website and YouTube channel and is its main contributor. Under Levant, The Rebel has been accused of being a platform for the far-right anti-Muslim ideology known as counter-jihad.[2][3]

Levant has become involved in several legal and other controversies on free speech issues. Levant has been successfully sued for libel on two separate occasions, while apologies and retractions were issued by him or on his behalf on three other occasions.

On the Science Board??????

Thanks. I thought it was a pretty nice expose too.

Typical, ignore the content and attack the messenger. He makes a very good case proving how fake the "news" is using the "Alliance of World Scientists" own website.

Maybe you should check out the video instead of Just attacking the messenger as is typically done.

If Mr. Myers wants to suggest a scientific study of propaganda then this sort of suspect sourcing is a good place to start. Otherwise, there is no reason for anyone with any intellectual standards to give this sort of crap any time at all. It isn't an attack to point out that Levant is a nut case and the materials he has assembled have no scientific credibility at all.

It is a pretty good "expose" of the rotten underpinnings of much of the anti- science screwballs. It ain't science they use, but propaganda and culling of heavily edited snippets.. It appeals to people with no formal scientific training and a political/religious ax to grind. It's like using "Triumph of Will"as a study of sports medicine.

A science board should be embarrassed by that sort of posting.

Repi,

You didn't even actually watch it, did you …

OR

You DID and the

It is a pretty good "expose" of the rotten underpinnings of much of the anti- science screwballs. It ain't science they use, but propaganda and culling

is about how the report is fake and the methodology used …

But that would be contradictory. To the max. That's not very scientific.

But if you did not watch it in its entirety, so you would have no idea of what it really was about and the methodology used or the results found, that too would be contradictory. That's not very scientific.

I'm afraid your reaction is just confusing!

Mr. Meyers, yes, I did struggle through it, but immediately noted the charming Mr. Levant ( great name for a Islamaphobe) was the one who kept referring to a "Study" and a " report" when the document is clearly labeled a declaration and a viewpoint. Even the reporter he chided never uses the words study or report. So essentially he's created a straw man!

After that bit of propagandistic misstatement I admit I had little patience with his silliness. Too much viewing of stuff like this will make you incapable of reasoned argument and lead you from science to fantasy.

Attempting to use mere semantics in trying to take away the fact 11,000 "scientists" did not sign this.

Yet, the media presented it, without even bothering to engage in due diligence to verify the validity is engaging in alarmism and outright deception.

The validity of the document has been proven to be false.

Taking away from this simple fact is sophism.

Repiq,

Anything from the Climate Alarmists is basically propaganda.

Remember who your experts are:

Jay Inslee
AOC
John Kerry
Al Gore
Jane Fonda

The letter was halted by the same people that started it when they discovered that a small number of entries were obvious attempts to discredit it. I can't imagine who would do this, can you?

They are reframing the process by firmer ID checks.

However, there is no denying there were thousands of scientist signatories and it took only a determined few to start this latest bit of delirium on the right. Assuming that people will attempt honesty is apparently no longer true. There is far less benefit to the world scientific community than to the deniers that some, I repeat, some, of the signatories were faked. I'm sure they'll be a analysis at Oregon.

This is a much an expression of the lengths CC deniers will go, than anything else. Scientists are often surprised by low levels that various nut jobs will go to, but shouldn't be. This was only a letter of concern, not a report, not a study, and not a data set. Letters such as these are meant to be signed, and therefore there is some level of trust involved.

The difference between science, religion, and climate change deniers is that only science will recognize an anomaly, honestly report it and attempt to correct the anomaly. Religion can't, as it is self referential, and CC deniers won't, because their self – identity is too fragile.

The report was NOT halted by anyone!

It was PUBLISHED.

Here's the piece in question. doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088

Yes it's published in the Journal BioSceinces, but it's in the Viewpoints sections (AKA Opinion column).

As far as 5 page summaries of a complex topic, I don't really find fault in it. It's unfortunate that some people tried to sabotage it, and there a few names that I'm sad to see are missing from the list, but its the classic FUD propaganda technique for derailing an important conversation.

If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
If you have a moral story on your side, argue morals
If you have neither, stand on the table, drop trousers and take a dump on the table then fling away to your heart's content.

Well, there you are Mr. Myers, way out over your skis!

See: link

Please read and note that it is halted, and intends to resume. News reports of their petition were published, but the petition has been, is, and will be a continuing log of scientists who believe that climate change is a threat.

You might want to read their current status report on the introduction of fake signatures. Remember this is essentially an online petition, not a scientific report, study, paper, or publication. That's another distinction between CC deniers and scientists- precision of language.

Martin,

How about these?

YouTube link

(I should ask about your "response" (reaction) to the declaration of the 500 ACTUAL scientists in juxtaposition to your acceptance and approval of this! TMP link

(I should repeat my continued asking of how you can explain all the peer-reviewed studies that contradict the alarmist claims link You asked for peer-reviewed articles. I found some. Silence…)

BUT I know you like the visuals of nifty graphs and the top link explains how they have been manipulated.

The reality is the more the "facts" presented by alarmists are examined the truth is revealed they are not facts.

Repi,

So they got caught and are trying to cover their bottoms, is the vernacular of what you are attempting to state.

No, Mr. Myers, that is not supported by the facts. In fact, they became aware of a concerted effort by some people to corrupt the site, and took steps to correct the list by removing spurious entries. However, as the RW blogosphere reacted and the efforts increased, they thought that taking down the signature entry capability in order to install increased security was the way to go. In truth, the efforts to corrupt the signatures had increased to the point where simple correction could not keep up with the volume.

No "bottoms" needed to be covered. Remember, this was simply a online initiative and the key was not the scientific information on the site, but the listing of signatures which was being corrupted by the concerted efforts of people who found the listing embarrassing to their position on Global Warming.

They are taking steps to defeat this effort. This is NOT a case of erroneous scientific information being foisted, but simple internet vandalism by people who have political and not firm scientific disagreement with the vast majority of scientists actually engaged in research.

Facts are persistent things.

oh boy … not the "vast majority of scientists" again …

(key dramatic music)

That's a repeatedly debunked topic on here.

YouTube link

Facts are persistent things.

True

But the Climate Alarmists do not use them.

They prefer to use made up or computer generated numbers.

He is correct that it isn't a vote or that majorities equate directly with scientific positions. However, it is true that a majority of people who have real knowledge or training in the area of AGW are pretty sure in their findings and papers about the nature of the problem. Their main opposition is found outside the scientific community from people who have no expertise, but strong political/religious feelings

Usually people are wiser to put their faith in people who actually know what they're talking about.

So being counter-jihad equals Islamaphobe?

"Assuming that people will attempt honesty is apparently no longer true."

Well, just watch the media and the House and you'll get your answer.

Pretty much. See: link

So we're to discount the fifth estate and our government and believe some you tube, blog, or podcast for our truths? Do we judge who to believe by what we prefer to believe or seek out the truth? That, of course, requires us to believe some conspiracy against our version of the truth.

Science is not fruitful ground for people who follow that path. This is the science board.

Nor is Dr. Ball known by me to have any scientific expertise on climate change.

So, if according to you,

a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983.

does not "any scientific expertise on climate change" make, pray tell, what does, in your mind?!

This is at a simpler comprehension level:

link

So we're to discount the fifth estate and our government…

Well, of course we can trust the government, they've never lied to us.

We are talking about the same Dr. Tim Ball that the Honourable Mr. Justice Skolrood wrote in Weaver v. Ball (2018):

[83]In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball's views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver's role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory,in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr.Weaver's reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr.Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.

a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983.

does not "any scientific expertise on climate change" make, pray tell, what does, in your mind?!

A very thin publishing record.

Mr. Myers, I didn't say he had no expertise, but that it was unknown to me. I'm sure from the added link that he seems to be at odds with many others in his field, and appears to be involved politically in many suits. So what? I'm not sure what value can be derived from appearing on a you tube "Show" in some guys garage, or his mother's basement. You assemble some really odd resources.

Dear editor, of course there are conflicts between political views in any government, but most people in government attempt to do the best given the facts in effect. It is only when facts become secondary to ideological beliefs that the lying starts. We are currently at a low ebb in truthfulness, but I still prefer our government, and a free press, over conspiracy mongering, anti-scientific screeds, wacko blogs, and old men yelling to get off their lawn.

Lots of avoidance of questions.

Unfortunately, lots of biased, bigoted and seemingly racist comments.

Science must not impose any philosophy, any more than the telephone must tell us what to say. – GK Chesterton

If only people would more closely practice what they pretend to preach.

As expected, a pre-ww2 philosopher with a pithy quote that sounds nice at first blush, but is completely at odds with the past 100 years of the philosophy of science, such as the conclusion that logical positivism is an epistemological dead-end. That's not to say that the journey exploring logical positivism was a waste of time, for it brought about a more structured way of thinking about epistemology, but it couldn't get past it's inherent self-contradiction (the verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified).

Similarly, the mere fact of needing to transmit information in a telephone distorts and limits the information that can be sent. A rotary phone is useless for non-verbal communication. In my field of study, time and time again, it shows that there are distinct advantages to co-location that can't be exactly duplicated via teleconferencing technology. Another example is in Medicine. As a field, they are just starting to recon with a male bias with regards to all fields of medical study, be it drug interactions to different morbidity.
link

I'm not sure, Mr. Meyers ,what you mean by bigoted, biased, or racist(????) arguments.

I do know that I, apparently, am the only one edited here for statements that could easily be published in any city paper. This editing does not allow me to make the most salient, and obvious, critiques of you and others of your beliefs concerning science, and in particular global climate change. I will say that G.K. Chesterton is one example that is no surprise from you. Next you'll be citing C.S.Lewis.

Ah, well, it may be the only time they are mentioned on a science board!

I'm not sure, Mr. Meyers ,what you mean by bigoted, biased, or racist(????) arguments.

My guess is that it stems from a debunk I posted about a month back that said that the list of signatories to the a petition (Cornwall Alliance I think?), one author amongst many did a passing remark that the list was overwhelmingly populated with male presenting (in English) pronouns with Emeritus titles.

I think that it's not an arbitrary association between climate change deniers, anti- evolutionists, and other people who find science threatening to their beliefs. They, along, with others who have a problem with many forms of modernity, are finding the shifting of the economy, politics, and accepted social patterns distressing and often blame science, technology, and various minority groups for their fears.

This has happened before in US history in the 1850s, late 19th and early 20th century, the early 50s, and now again in the new century. The general pattern has been that the changes are incorporated and the craziness subsides. Sometimes this is violent, but often it occurs with generational change. I doubt if climate change will be debated by many in a few years. It will subside to an Isolated and alienated few, much as Evolution has done since the Monkey Trial of the 20s.

Other than the so called experts will keep bringing it up.

Agendas must be pushed and those experts live by the…

"Rules for Radicals"

Say something enough times and it becomes truth.

It's kind of like reading Statler and Waldorf – the two cranks off the Muppets who would only heckle and would console and trigger each other to further ridiculous outbursts.

link

They too, were funny to watch.

Mr. Meyers, the arguments cupboard must be empty as you are now spinning off into silliness, possibly to cover the fact that if anyone reads the above thread they will discover:

That the list was not fake, nor was it a report. You claimed it hadn't been stopped which was untrue, and then tried to recover by stating it was only done when it was "discovered" by the right wing deniers, when it is clear the list sponsors were taking actions prior to this, and these same deniers were the cause of many of the problems.

You supported all your nonsense with a you tube video by an extremely suspect man, and a podcast by some guy in his home studio featuring a man who is lightly published and not very respected by many of his own peers.

Then you made claims of bigotry, biased, and racism with no evidence in the thread of any of those things. Apparently that is perfectly in line with board standards, but an obviously desperate move.

I'm done with this one.

(More like Abbott and Costello and " Who's on first??")