Posted on 04/26/2016 5:18:47 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The internet represents an extraordinary opportunity for democracy.
Yet despite the scientific consensus that global warming is real and primarily due to human activity, studies show that only about half the population in some countries with among the highest CO2 emissions per capita understand that human beings are the driving force of our changing climate. Even fewer people are aware of the scientific consensus on this question.
Climate Feedback intends to change that. It brings together a global network of scientists who use a new web-annotation platform to provide feedback on climate change reporting. For the first time, Climate Feedback allows you to check whether you can trust the latest breaking story on climate change.
We argue that scientists have a moral duty to speak up when they see misinformation masquerading as science.
We want readers to know which sources they can trust. We want editors to think twice before they publish ideological rather than evidence-based reporting on global warming.
Scientists from all over the world are standing up for better informed democracies. You can help them make their voices heard. We invite you to stand with us for a better internet. We invite you to stand with science.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
This was far enough.
Bunk and hokum...
Owellian.
I lived on the Florida coast for 32 years, and every time I went to the beach, it was in the same damn place it was the last time I went to the beach.
I checked out the site:
surprise !
All the articles supporting AGW get 1.9 (out of 2) and all the ones skeptical get -1.9’s.
It’s laughable.
“We argue that scientists have a moral duty to speak up when they see misinformation masquerading as science.”
At least I can agree with this one sentence. It would be a start . . . but the warmists would soon be out of business.
“Climate Feedback allows you to check whether you can trust the latest breaking story on climate change.”
I fart in your general direction.
Really? That's a good one. Ok, these scammers have been promoting the idea that CO2 is the problem. Fine. Explain this:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
This shows that global temperature has been cycling on its own (long before mankind was a potential factor). Oddly enough, it also shows that CO2 increases lag behind increases in temperature. Kind of hard to twist that into a causal relationship in any way.
Earth's climate has been changing ever since there has been an Earth's climate.
Or just toss this on them and wait while the crickets play a tune:
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet’
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
Go ahead, call me a denier. I wear the label proudly. :>)
Repeat after me, I see the effects of climate change every day, I see the effects of climate change every day, I see the effects of climate change every day, I see the witch hiding in the corner of the classroom, burn the witch, burn the witch.
Me too. I don't deny the climate is changing. I think if it weren't, stagnation would be pretty horrific. I do deny the scammers' reality and "explanation" for climate change. So yeah, I deny their scam, their selective and distorted interpretation and manipulation of information for their own ends...
“..their own ends..” = green of another type. As in Cha Chingage
Please, Guardian, stay away from things you will never understand.
Science is one of those things.
These clowns survive off of government grants. They have to do what their communist masters tell them to do. That involves ending freedom and capitalism.
Consesus:
1. Give 100% of climatologists false data, not provable by any chain of custody documentation, nor is there chain of custody documentation proving the calibration of any sensors, nor the qualifications of anyone in the entire process.
2. Give 100% of climatologists very, very custom computer modelling, carefully crafted to produce a desired outcome.
3. Surprise! Every one of them came up with the exactly same invalid results.
Climate feedback is also what makes your models spit out any predetermined result that you’re looking for.
Yeah, it’s a one-way street with them. They’re not looking for any feedback from me.
In order to stand with the science that man controls the climate you will first need some science supporting the theory. So far, there is zero scientific evidence that man is the driving force directing climate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.