Friends of Science: Facts from the Coal Industry's Favourite Scientist
Tags: barry cooper, Canada, cato institute, Friends of Science, pat michaels, Richard Littlemore, Skeptic Generated News, US
There are few people in the climate change denial industry who have Pat Michaels' demonstrated willingness to cuddle up to big coal.
So, it's no surprise that the discredited Friends of Science chose Michaels as keynote speaker for the Friends' Fifth Annual Luncheon Event.
Note the Friends interesting new truth-in-advertising tagline: "Advocates of Climate Change Debate."
Which seems to say, we don't care if the truth is buried in there anywhere, we just want to keep stoked the flames of indecision. (See next post).
Hardly.
The Friends of Science Web site is informative and factual.
Completely unlike Desmogblog.
Want to review Discredited Propagandists?
Check out how the leaders of the Discredited AGW industry have been publicly discredited over and over again.
Goolge these:
James Hansen adjusts temperature data to back AGW agenda.
Michael Mann rewrites history to push AGW Agenda.
IPCC falsifies temperature record to back AGW claim. (Still under fraud investigation)
Al Gore lies. Enough said.
Truth and facts have never been important factors in any good environmentalist movement.
Here is yet another opinion from a prominent scientist about the AGW scam.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
Excerpt:
That doesn’t work because there are 30-year cycles. The chairman of the IPCC admits we’ve had global cooling for at least eight years, and there are sources on the Internet, you’ve probably seen them, that show the IPCC folks are panicking.
I would like any of the cult to review the Friends of Science web site and point out anything that is untrue.
Be prepared to defend your assertion.
Well, I don't have time to read the entire FOS webpage, but I don't see any need, since the very first graph they present puts their entire methodology into doubt.
In the GLTTaCO2 graph shown here...
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html#Introduction
...a green line of fit is conveniently overlaid across part of the data to show that the general temperature trend from 2002-8 is down. Indeed it is, -- but why stop at 2002? If one goes back one more year to 2001, the trend becomes stable, and back only one more year to 2000 the trend is clearly up. Also, within the 2002-8 downward trend one sees a number of distinctly upward ones, such as from 2003-5, so why did these "scientists" decide to focus only on a specific cluster of years that happens to fit their claims and none of the others? Could it be that their choice of the years 2002-8 was cherry-picked to suit their biased conclusion, and not because they sought to deal with the issue objectively?
If this is what passes for legitimate science nowadays, I can only say that I am appalled. I don't have any kind of science background, am merely a layman, and even I can see through such obfuscatory nonsense.
They were correctly pointing out how AGW Pseudo science spins information to promote the Myth.
You can find examples of it everwhere these days.
Pathetic actually. Science has been reduced to special interest group propoganda.
And the Sheeple eat it up.
You still haven't learned how to spell, or to use a spell-checker. This says a lot about your intellectual rigour.
It says a lot about how trivial I consider this topic.
If I thought it was in any way important I would take much more care.
Bust since I know that any comments that do not bow to the accepted dogma will be dismissed out of hand, (standard religeous parctice) I don't put that much effort into it.
If one person decides there may be more to the story than what they get here and in the MSM, my job is done.
If you consider this such a trivial topic, how come you spend so much time here?
Your job would be done? Does that mean you work for FOS?
Or perhaps some other corrupt cherry-picking denier/delayer group?
The best fit line is shown from 2002+ for three reasons:
* It draws your attention to the fact that global temperatures have been stable or declining since the beginning of 2002.
* It indicates that the trend has changed from increasing to decreasing.
* It allows a calculation of the rate of temperature change over the period.
The only constant about climate is that it changes, and therefore the trend will change. The FOS position based on science is that the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. The temperatures have increased from 1979 through 2002 primarily due to changes in the Sun. The Sun has been increasing in intensity and magnetic influence during most of the 20th century. There is some controversy over how much the Sun's irradiance has increased since 1980, but the ACRIM data shows increasing intensity after 1980. Since 1980 or 1990 there has been no increase, and the Sun has become very quiet. However, due to the huge heat capacity of the oceans, the Sun would continue to cause warming for about 2 decades after its intensity become constant or starts to decline.
The Sun's intensity is now falling, so we may now be in a cooling phase.
A trend line through the global temperature graph from 1979 to 2007 would show an increasing trend of +0.157 Celsius/decade. However, this is misleading for two reasons:
* Volcanic eruptions causing two cool periods on the left side of the graph, and the El Nino of 1998 on the right side of the graph, events which have nothing to due with the climate change trends, would tend to exaggerate the calculated warming trend.
* A straight line through all the data would falsely imply that you should expect temperatures to continue on that trend, and it obscures that fact that the Sun's climate forcing has changed, causing a change in the trend.
It is obvious that temperatures have increased to 2002, but the fact of increasing temperatures tells us nothing about the cause. CO2 has a minor effect on temperatures
but if the Sun becomes less active, I expect temperatures to continue to decline.
"...The FOS position based on science is that the Sun is the primary driver of climate change..." False. The FOS position is not based on science.
The rest of what you wrote is also false. Shame on the FOS for dragging the University of Calgary's name into the gutter. I hope you are all prosecuted for fraud.
"The FOS position": any one who actually reads anything put out by this band of fraudsters knows that FOS describes them completely, and FOS does not stand for "friends of science" but is the other well known meaning for this abbreviation.
There should be a movement to get them to replace their name with the "other" meaning of FOS since it describes them much more accurately.
Anyone who claims to be associated with this group should be ashamed of it, especially if they claim to know anything about science.
Ian Forrester
"The Friends of Science Web site is informative and factual."
how unkind of you to trash the comments section!!
Richard,
You've hit the nail right on the head.
Didn't get the gist of that one.
However, I still don't see any examples of statements form FOS that are not true.
And no I don't work for any web site or activist group.
I am just a concerned citizen that hates to see people lied to and taken advantage of.
But since the AGW thing is really running out of steam now, I can't get too excited about it. The truth will be common knowledge soon enough.
Then we can all have good laugh and get back to solving real problems.
How honourable of you to be so concerned ... and honest as well about your motives!
I wonder what real problems you would like to solve since the impetus for your continued diatribe hangs solely on the will to do nothing except create and promote confusion about AGW.
I have been a lurker on this site for some time and I must say this "TROLL" guy is a hoot ! I just got to ask...are you for real or are you really a master of satire..or do you just like pulling peoples legs ? If you are really advocating the position that AGW is a scam...well knock yourself out buddy !
It is difficult to be serious when dealing with faith based pseudo science, but.
I do seriously want to encourage everyone to read and become informed. Dont take anyones word for anything, go find out for yourself.
Moulder's law.... the truth is out there!
We have many real problems that need solving and wasting energy on this non issue just ensures that nothing constructive will ever get done.
Its so sad that one must joke about it to stay sane.
You, sir, are my hero. All they do is trash what you say (with no facts, just wordy trash talking) and you keep going.
I just found the FOS website recently and found the streamlined content (with links to research, mind you) not only much easier to understand but much less absorbed with proving than disproving.
They have disproved your current theories, gentlemen (and rather handily). It is your job to bring evidence, not repeated, pathetic verbal abuse that proves NOTHING in regards to science.
-A Young Man In Search of Truth