Stephan Lewandowsky (and John Cook) got excited that Barack Obama ‘retweeted’ the (fallacious) 97% consensus study. In The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky made it the leading line (right under the name-calling headline):
“When President Obama last week tweeted that “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous” it drew the attention of his 31 million followers to the most recent study pointing to the consensus in climate science.”
As a Professor of Psychology on a academic site, we might assume Lewandowsky might be more factual and less like a direct marketing campaign. (Dear Stephan, there is no chance 31 million followers read his tweets. Twitter is not like that. Obama is following 662,021 people. You think he reads them?)
Worse, that tweet was not by Barack Obama. The @barackobama account is run by an activist group called Organizing for Action (OFA). It’s the fourth biggest twitter account in the world, but Obama gave the account to OFA earlier this year, and he doesn’t appear to have used it since. (Still it’s not like Lewandowsky’s career depends on understanding how people work, and how to spot a fake right? Oh. Wait… )
OFA use Obama’s photo and his name, and at @barackobama they acknowledge that they are running the account. They add that “Tweets from the President are signed -bo”, as if he might use it, someday. Confusingly many tweets end in a link with “OFA.BO/…” but that’s not the President either. Perhaps the President has used the account to tweet since he handed it over, but The Atlantic Wire said the last tweet from him was Jan 21. I searched 1,000 tweets on Snapbird and couldn’t find any signed “-bo” since then.
Here’s OFA tweeting with Obama’s face and name:
Then there is the last real tweet from the man himself, that I can find:
Obama’s staff used to write a lot of his tweets anyway, and you might ask “what’s the difference?” The difference is that Organizing for Action doesn’t work for Obama, they are supposedly independent:
“The @BarackObama Twitter account clearly states in its description that it is controlled by Organizing for Action,” the OFA official told us, “and this is a Twitter handle that has been controlled and used for years by a nongovernmental organization — Obama for America — without any problems with confusion.”
Kaune points out that OFA’s management of @BarackObama is “no different than Senator So-and-so who doesn’t know how to use an account and has a staffer do that.” But in that case, the social media-savvy staffer works directing for the senator. OFA and Obama have no official relationship.
Which brings us to the curious point that even though OFA tweet in the name of the leader of the Democratic Party, they are legally a non-partisan organization. Figure out how that works.
The arms-length relationship between Obama and Organizing For Action is based on its legal status as a non-partisan organization. As Politico reported in February, the organization updated its guidelines to make that point clearly.
[The Atlantic Wire] “The organization on Wednesday quietly posted new guidelines on its website formally declaring its intention to stay out of campaign politics.
“Neither OFA nor its chapters will be involved in any way in elections or partisan political activity,” OFA wrote. “Its exclusive purpose is public policy advocacy and development, and in particular, both enactment of President Obama’s legislative agenda and the identification and advancement of other goals for progressive change at the state and local level.
They also have tax exempt 501(c)4 status. I don’t suppose they had to wait 29 months for approval from the IRS, had their donor list leaked, or faced letters with 90 questions?
OFA are an independent lobby group, that are also “non-partisanly” hosting a web-page calling Republicans names: http://my.barackobama.com/Hold-Climate-Deniers-Accountable.
I guess if they had convincing arguments they wouldn’t need to name-call?
Twitter has “verified” the BarackObama account, and you might ask what verified means anymore. Twitter says it is “used to establish authenticity of identities on Twitter”. As if it’s authentic for a team of people who aren’t Barack Obama to use his name, position and photo to send out partisan messages in an officially non-partisan way. Twitter, I don’t think this is going to work out well.
As for Stephan Lewandowsky, and John Cook, we’d hope they’d write their papers with more care than their blog posts, but last time I looked they were still claiming 78,000 skeptics could have seen their survey at Cook’s site, where they never hosted a link. Don’t miss the “8 step version of the scientific method according to Lew and Cook” at Australian Climate Madness. I’m pretty sure the University of Bristol is not aware what it has taken on.
There is some back-story here:
- Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for
- Dear John, you want “deniers” to help you do a fallacious survey eh?
- Royal Society calls Lewandowsky “outstanding”, gives him money, loses more scientific credibility
- IPCC Lead Author calls Lewandowsky “deluded”
- John Cook of (un) SkepticalScience, admits “climate change denier” is inaccurate. Will he stop name-calling?
- The Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook
- He hopes we meant “Conspiracy” but we mean “Incompetence”
- Lewandowsky gets $1.7m of taxpayer funds to denigrate people who disagree with him
- Steve McIntyre finds Lewandowsky’s paper is a “landmark of junk science”
h/t to Neville for editing help.
They may have 31 million followers but the tell of it all is in the followers and retweet numbers below each twit!
30
My apologies, that is Favorites not Followers.
10
None of this really matters though. It all feeds the meme.
The Lewandowsky Cook exercise is a triumph of packaging over substance.
It’s enough to fool leading , if suggestible, politicians.
Ed Davey on Radio 4
10
Hi Joe! I heard the quote from Davey on R4. I don’t recall that he actually qualified what he said with: “…who expressed and opinion.”
(But, unlike warmists, I’m happy to be proved wrong).
30
Agree. A “consensus” only means that none of us is as dumb as all of us.
60
Joe
Slightly off thread but somewhat more cheerful: Exactly 100 days to September 14 – “Clean up Australia (politics) Day”.
Cheers,
Speedy
80
Speedy, it looks like the clean up has already started
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/two_labor_mps_pack_up_their_offices_100_days_before_the_election/
40
They know the games up and they have no respect for their leader or her spin merchants, including the naive fools in her office who provide the daily must repeat often slogans.
40
Yeah Ross, even they don’t want another few years of this rubbish.
99 days and counting…
Cheers,
Speedy
00
“an opinion”
00
The company I work for has a number of “rules” that need to be remembered when looking for information on the Internet.
Here is the first ten:
Rule #1: Any item found on the Web, through a search engine, is by definition, out of date.
Rule #2: No item found on the Web, through a search engine, can be authoritative.
Rule #3: If Rule #2 is in doubt, see Rule #1.
Rule #4: All information transmitted through Twitter, is merely opinion.
Rule #5: All information posted to a Facebook page, is merely slow-motion opinion.
Rule #6: The number of Retweets or Likes on social media is not a measure of its veracity. (*)
Rule #7: All information found on the web, that is not written in the first person, will contain inaccuracies.
Rule #8: All information that is written and published by a Government Agency, on the Web, will contain errors of omission.
Rule #9: All information that is published on the Web, by a commercial organisation, will contain multiple direct and indirect lies.
Rule #10: Any information published on a Website, that includes a legal disclaimer, will include factual inaccuracies and lies.
(*): The number of Retweets or Likes on social media is an indication of either: a) the receivers degree of proximity to the sender; b) its overall distribution; c) the cohesiveness of the group; or d) some combination of the above. Ergo, it is meaningless, in regard to the content.
230
Your company actually has to spell all this out?!
20
No, not really.
The list started as a bit of a joke, when one of our number (who shall remain nameless, because they should know better) happily quoted an article they found on the web via Google, that was eight years old, but undated.
The list has grown since, as people find other weird stuff (mostly done by student interns), that just seems to happen.
For example, one of the other rules (which is my favourite) says, “Your mother may act as if she knows everything, but she doesn’t actually know the President of the United States, nor what he is thinking”.
70
Actually, a lot of those rules apply to any kind of information presented to the public. You really have to research things and be sure of sources. I try to find at least four sources that have similar information, plus a couple that may not. It’s really difficult to know anymore.
20
I know, Ronald Reagan is POTUS
20
You know he WAS.
RIP R.R., Postponer of the downfall.
Some recorders of history will say collapse (if they are permitted to speak freely).
20
Rereke – the “rules” may be good guidelines but particularly #9 and #10 are generalisations that will in fact often be wrong. Many organisations publish information where they could be sued if it contained known errors or inaccuracies. We need ot be a bit careful of over-reacting to the environment we live in – or we could end up in the situation where communication is impossible because no-one can believe anything anytime.
00
#11. Viral does not equate with veracity.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0
SHRILLNESS WARNING!
00
Barack Obama is like Bob Carr our Foreign Minister, who admitted yesterday that he doesn’t write the posts at ‘his’ blog and doesn’t even read them. But he did admit that sometimes he does actually tweet on his own twitter account. Fancy that!
I find it interesting that a politician should have a blog named after him which is essentially a lie, and sees nothing wrong with this.
Presumably that is why they can push non-existent CAGW, which is also a politically convenient lie.
180
Carr is a book worm, I doubt that he can operate a computer, at least that is the rumour.
10
It doesn’t matter to Obama if he has any personal touch with his media, as long as it’s set up to fuel his agenda and propaganda.
Do you think Hitler had a problem with Goebbels running his public persona?
50
This is a joke, right? You were being facetious, right?
10
This has also turned up in an article entitled, “What’s Left in the Carbon Budget Before It’s Too Late?”, here. The article itself is more focussed on a four-year old paper, called “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2oC” (unattributed); and guess what, the hockey-stick has found a new home …
My response was:
It is still awaiting moderation, as I type this. I will be interested to see if it gets through.
140
Hmm, the link went wrong 🙁
The link should be to here
[Fixed for you -Fly]
10
I’m of the opinion that folks like Cook and Lewandowski and sites like SkS are among the best tools out there for generating sceptics.
Just wait. If current trends continue, more and more people will be looking at these guys and asking questions.
Similar to what is now going on with our President. Some have thought President Obama has received a free pass from the media since taking office. But now the press is remembering their role and asking questions. AP just started posting stories about EPA use of fake email accounts and giving favorable treatment to certain groups while stonewalling others. I’m sure there is no relation to AP having their phones tapped.
40
I think that the press and congress realized that while Obama cannot be re-elected, current Congressmen will have to run again if they want to stay in. The media realizes people know where the off switch is on the TV. These people have something to lose, unlike Obama.
40
All these social media mind control engines need to be banned….I `as`sure you its high on my list of things to do when I gain power, Im` getting advice on thematter from the IRGC .
30
…anyway, how do your computer know how to pick an avatar that looks so much like me???? Thats creepy.
30
And me, Ace.
Who has the other photos I wonder. 😉
20
It appears increasingly likely that the climate confabulation will soon become newspaper for fish ‘n chips and thence, useful material by which to warm oneself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Global Microwave SST Update for May 2013: -0.01 deg. C
EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature
20
Here is a conspiracy theory that will cause Lewandowsky, Cook and the “team of international citizen scientist volunteers” collective heads to explode:
.
“Famous French intellectual Pascal Bruckner describes the obstruction of fossil fuel development by Green Zealots as-
“The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse”
Pascal Bruckner’s book perfectly describes the apocalyptic mind set of Green Zealots.
In their world view “Saving The Planet” can only be achieved by obstructing the use of energy from fossil fuel and nuclear energy.”
In 2010, the Asian Development Bank announced that 800 million souls had been lifted out of poverty in recent years due to fossil-fuel-powered economic growth.
“Do the the Green Zealots in the EPA and in Bill McKibbin’s 350 organization against fossil fuel have the right to keep millions of people in poverty due to their false belief in Catastrophic Climate Change?”
.
Who are the real climate denialists?
Numerous Warmists Scientists are having to face up to the reality that global warming has stopped.
50
UK Energy Secretary Ed Davey, however, has swallowed Cook et al’s “consensus” research hook, line and stinker.
Here he is on BBC World Tonight, 3 June 2013:
Carolyn Quinn: Now, to what do we attribute climate change? I pose this question with some trepidation, knowing that it will bring forth a multitude of different responses. Reputations have, as you know, been won and lost over this question and still the arguments continue. The Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, has criticised parts of the media for the way they give a platform to campaigners and groups that question whether climate change is caused by human activity; people like the former chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby – who joins me now as does Mr Davey. Together in the studio, and Mr Davey making a point by talking into a green microphone. Now, do you think that Lord Lawson and his fellow thinkers are being overexposed then?
Ed Davey: Well, I do think that if you look at the evidence and if you look at what climate scientists around the world are saying, it is extremely convincing that climate change is happening and it is caused by human beings. For example, there is a recent survey that looked at 12,000 scientific surveys and it shows – this are by the way all peer-reviewed scientific papers, so high-quality – and it shows that 97% of those scientists who expressed an opinion, 97%, said yes, that global warming was happening and it was caused by human beings. So there is a massive amount of scientific consensus. And what I was saying today when I was speaking to people from the Met Office and the Hadley Centre was that, given that massive consensus in the scientific community, it really was a shame that there were politicians, there were the media questioning that and actually making difficult for the public to accept the measures, which we need to take. Now, I am really clear, we need healthy scepticism over the science, I am not against that, but when the overwhelming evidence is one way, we need to notice that.
Carolyn Quinn: Well, Lord Lawson, the survey there, 12,000 academic papers on climate change, finds 97% agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. Yet you question that consensus, don’t you?
Nigel Lawson: Well, plenty of very eminent climate scientists are in doubt about that. I have on the Academic Advisory Council of my Foundation some of the most eminent climate scientists in the world who disagree with it. The whole thing is completely uncertain. But of course, what we do know is there has been no warming at all for the past 16 years, no recorded warming at all for the past 16 years. That survey is rather old. Scientists are now, in the view of the latest evidence, beginning to reconsider and say, well, maybe other factors are more important. Nobody knows. What concerns me is not so much this area of discussion – there should be discussion, there should be debate, and different scientists will take different views, consensus is the death of true science – what concerns me is that Ed Davey, who I know is a completely sincere person, is imposing, and the government of which he is a member – but he is the key minister here – is imposing an energy bill, which will hugely increase energy costs in this country. It will be hugely damaging to British industry, to the British economy and, above all, it will be devastating for the poorest families in the land who have a high energy bill as it is and he is going put it up higher. No other country in the world, no other country is doing this.
30
Sadly, the 97% consensus meme has been taken up and totally misrepresented by the Sydney Morning Herald:
“The proportion of scientific papers published on the subject that reject the man-made origins of climate change is, however, far smaller than the proportion of sceptics on the Coalition benches.
Of about 12,000 scientific papers published worldwide in the 20 years to 2011, only 1.9 per cent did, a survey last month by James Cook University showed, and 97 per cent argued that climate change was real and man-made.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/canary-isle-shows-climate-change-is-real-20130603-2nm5r.html#ixzz2VLihNMgM.
I wonder if Peter Hartcher knew that 2/3 papers were excluded to get this manufactured result.
Oh well, one can only expect it, but its about time the scientific community actually started correcting these mistakes. I wonder if getup! will pounce on the erroneous report above.
30
4 June: UK Telegraph: Delingpole: Ed Davey makes the silliest speech ever
Oh dear. I’ve just read the speech Ed Davey delivered yesterday at the Met Office and the best thing you could say about it is that was worthy of its host venue: which is to say short on science, shamelessly parti-pris, and completely out of touch with what is going on in the real world…
Then Davey invokes more tosh – this time the Cook Survey…
Yes, but as those of us in the real world know, the Cook Survey was bunkum. That 97 per cent figure was a complete invention…
Here, on the other hand, we have a minister of the crown reproducing a string of complete untruths at a deeply discredited, eye-wateringly expensive, taxpayer-funded rip-off institution long past its sell-by date (that’ll be you, Met Office) as a desperate and cynical measure to try to push through an Energy Bill guaranteed to make every household in Britain considerably poorer, to make energy more ruinously expensive, to make British business less competitive, and to ruin our landscape with even more bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes.
Ed Davey is a disgrace and an embarrassment – by some way (and it’s not like there’s any shortage of competition) the most damaging and dangerous minister in Cameron’s Coalition of the useless.
***Why is he not being called account for this farrago of nonsense? Why aren’t the true Conservatives in the Coalition demanding that he be sacked? How can any government which genuinely cares about the state of our economy, our countryside and people’s falling standards of living allow this anti-scientific, green ideological nonsense to hijack the political agenda?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100220113/ed-davey-makes-the-silliest-speech-ever/
40
Alice T #15
I doubt it very much indeed. It is only because it is in agreement with the political meme that it appears he is speaking both from authority and in agreement with it. Such is political survival and the art of lying it encompasses. In truth, it is about as useful as saying the majority of late nineteenth and early twentieth scientists considered eugenics a helpful approach to future demographic strategy.
Davey went on to say:
There wouldn’t have been a scientist in the room that did not experience at the very least a twinge of disquiet at being considered a numerical part of an argument as opposed to being an individual contributor to an empirical study of compelling evidence.
I don’t think it will be long before we witness a grand breakout from the ranks.
70
I look at the Obama tweets this way: In over four years, the only thing Obama got passed (and Nancy Pelosi was the actual mover of the law) was Obamacare. Now, he can’t get tax increases, gun control, etc. Obama backing climate change (whether with his own words or not) seems a death nell for the whole thing. Besides, the only suggestions I have seen him put forth involve energy conservation. It’s all fluff.
70
I’m pretty well convinced that Obi-Wan was actually on the climate bandwagon in his first few months in office. Since then he’s just thrown the warmers the occasional bone.
40
Used to work for KRudd.
Amazing how he’s gone from this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqZvpRjGtGM
To this: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3776544.htm
So, the great moral challenge these days is Abbott!Abbott!Abbott!.
Spineless self aggrandising twerp.
00
There are times, Sheri, when I think the Yanks have it right with their non-compulsory voting. Then a flake like Obama happens. ( Please note, I’m with Janet Albrechtsen: it’s merit I want, not quotas.) Maybe we have it right after all.
00
MSM still giving the CAGW alarmists so much media time, with no response from the Coalition:
5 June: Courier Mail: Malcolm Farr: Carbon pricing here to stay, says Greg Combet
LABOR in Opposition will fight a Coalition government’s attempts to repeal carbon pricing with the issue almost certain to be decided at another election following the scheduled September 14 poll.
“Carbon pricing is here to stay,” said Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet today in defiance of Coalition claims Labor should bow to an election mandate.
Mr Combet said if Tony Abbott were elected Prime Minister “he cannot and will not repeal the carbon price”.
“Labor will remain committed to it,” he told the National Press Club in Canberra…
Employment Minister Bill Shorten, a potential Labor leader should the Government fall on September 14, has also pledged to continue support for a market-based system to cut greenhouse emissions, and senior ministers have privately matched that pledge.
That means a Coalition government led by Tony Abbott, who will insist the September 14 election is a “scrap the tax” referendum, could be frustrated in the Senate where Labor and the Greens would still have the numbers until July next year…
Mr Abbott has consistently said he would be prepared to take the matter to a double dissolution should he be blocked from abolishing carbon pricing. And that would require a half-Senate election soon after to get the Upper House into sync with the House of Representatives.
Mr Combet rejected the Coalition’s Direct Action policy – in which companies would be paid to reduce emissions – as “a high cost, inefficient and fundamentally inequitable approach”…
“Mr Abbott wants to slug taxpayers so he can subsidise big polluters for projects they are already undertaking, without achieving any significant reductions in carbon pollution.
“The Opposition simply wants to socialise the carbon pollution problem by imposing the costs on taxpayers rather than on the polluters themselves.”
He said the Government’s carbon pricing scheme had been a success since its start in July last year with carbon pollution from electricity generators falling by 7.4 per cent…
Renewable energy generation was up almost 30 per cent; annual economic growth today was recorded at 2.5 per cent since July 1; more than 150,000 new jobs had been created; inflation had been contained…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/special-features/carbon-pricing-here-to-stay-says-greg-combet/story-fnho52jo-1226657820519
5 June: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Christine Milne: Abbott’s climate stance jeopardises the future of children
Milne defended the Greens’ push for a much higher carbon price during the negotiations over the clean energy package…
She conceded the international price was forecast to be much lower than Australia’s at the point when the Australian price starts to be set by the market, but said she had “faith” the European Union would fix the problems driving down its carbon price…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/05/greens-leader-abbott-jeopardises-children
20
This policy will see the Labor incompetents in opposition for at least three terms or until such time as they finally understand that it’s a fraud, whichever the greater.
30
This is great investigative journalism.
It shames the ABC and other outlets which spread this ‘lie’ wide and far.
Another lie to do with AGW. How can a ‘theory’ continue to exist when it is advocated by so many liars and is supported by so many lies?
130
so where is Greg Hunt, who has barely been in the MSM for weeks?
26 May: Morning Peninsula Leader: The Island President to be screened in Mornington for World Environment Day
The film is the story of President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, a man faced with a great challenge: as one of the most low-lying countries in the world, a rise of a metre in sea level would submerge the 1200 islands of the Maldives, making them uninhabitable.
After the film, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Greg Hunt and Luke Taylor from the Sustainable Living Foundation will give their insights into the impacts of climate change in a presentation and Q&A session…
The film will screen on June 5 from 6pm at the Southern Peninsula Arts Centre, Eastbourne Rd, Rosebud.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/bayside/the-island-president-to-be-screened-in-mornington-for-world-environment-day/story-fngnvli9-1226650163224
World Environment Day film screening – Island President
Following the film, Greg Hunt from the ***South East Councils for Climate Change Action and Luke Taylor from the Sustainable Living Foundation will give their insights into the impacts of climate change in the local context in a presentation and Q&A session…
http://islandpresidentmps.eventbrite.com.au/
anyone attend?
30
Good question Pat.
The coalition, when it wins in September is going to be a real problem with the likes of Hunt in it.
50
I’m not sure of that cohenite.
I suspect that Hunt is running with the hares while his colleagues hunt with the hounds, for good political reasons. I would not be at all surprised to see him re-evaluate his position in light of victory; and, the increasing number of peer-reviewed scientific papers refuting the CAGW hypothesis that are coming through the system.
What we need to do is get the latest material to him and his advisers. No let up.
20
Well I hope you’re right; but I first exchanged emails with Hunt about 6 years ago and as far as I can see he hasn’t changed his position one iota.
The again his honours thesis was about the need to price carbon; that must make for lively exchanges with Abbott who wants to get rid of the CO2 tax.
Howard said the coalition was a broad church but that’s ridiculous.
50
Well, I do too!
However, he’s made it clear that the CO2 tax is gone – he’s not fighting that as far as I can see.
See here from 1:45 onwards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kX3YKwYIoBI&list=PLE52B59C36DC45B11#!
A little dated, but still clear.
00
Let’s hope he doesn’t recant and go down the insane path his conservative cousins in England have gone.
10
Hunt readies for Direct Action examination
“At the National Environmental Law Association annual conference (NELA), Greg Hunt convincingly won a debate against the Greens Queensland Senator Larissa Waters and John Connor from the Climate Institute.
To avoid being bogged in the sceptics debating quagmire, Greg Hunt said right up front that he believes in the science and that humans are impacting on the climate calling it “a fundamental challenge for the next 30, 50 or 100 years.”
Moderator Jon Faine pulled him up, pointing out that many in the Coalition did not share that view.
Hunt’s response was that “a third of the community are sceptics and naturally there are sceptics in the Coalition as well.”
.
As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them. They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.
Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.
50
Power companies want help on prices to keep clients in Europe
BOLOGNA, Italy, June 5 (Reuters) – Europe’s squeezed utility firms say they cannot cut prices to stop their big industrial clients moving to the United States, where fuel costs around a quarter as much…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2403152?&ref=searchlist
60
Exactly as I thought – the massive growth in costs inhibits demand and the market moves to respond. Do the power co’s eventually go bust?
This is economic unsustainability in action. If the toxic Green dream is to find any traction whatsoever, it first needs to be economically sustainable, rather than the sucking, debilitating and parasitic nightmare the evidence shows it to be.
50
Obama sucks and tweets about him suck equally.
There I said it.
60
OFA also email their propaganda messages and a friend of mine is a recipient. On the 8th of May they sent him an email titled “Unicorns Exist” and asking recipients to “hold climate deniers accountable”.
My response to this vile message was to send my friend to Jo’s handbook and website. As a result he has now wised up on the AGW issue and is now a skeptic.
So based on my data 100% of the people that received an OFA pro-AGW email and were subsequently referred to Jo Nova’s website have converted to an AGW skeptic.
Here is their email:
From: “Ivan Frishberg, BarackObama.com”
Subject: Unicorns exist**
Date: 8 May 2013 1:19:09 PM AEST
To:
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com
Friend —
If I said to you: “Unicorns exist, I totally just saw one galloping down the street,” most likely you’d give me a sad look and get on with your day.
But what if House Speaker Boehner and the chairman of the House Science Committee said they didn’t know if the science behind climate change was real. (Yeah. That actually happened.)
Now obviously, it doesn’t matter if I just make stuff up about unicorns. But it matters, and it matters a whole lot, that so many of our elected officials in Washington who represent us are denying science and using that denial to refuse to take action on climate change.
It’s actually dangerous — and it matters how we react.
Each and every day that congressional leaders hold on to their bizarre fantasy world, OFA is going to be there, not letting them get away with it.
Add your name and say you’re ready to hold climate deniers accountable.
We’re going to make them say it out loud — either double-down on their claims, or come to their senses. The National Academy of Sciences and more than 13,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers all confirm that the carbon pollution in our atmosphere today is causing dangerous climate change.
The sticky thing about the truth is that it’s the truth whether Congress likes it or not.
Unicorns don’t exist, climate change is real, and we said we weren’t going to let this go.
Sign here and help Congress get real:
http://my.barackobama.com/Hold-Climate-Deniers-Accountable
Thanks,
Ivan
Ivan Frishberg
Climate Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action
30
OK, I’m up for it. I choose Powerpoint slides as the format, no fewer than twelve. OFA can choose the CAGW consensusee and I’ll debate them. Pick Michael Mann, please, it would be so much fun using his own paper to disprove the CAGW hypothesis.
I’m not concerned since the one thing I am positively sure of is that no CAGW person will debate. They rarely do and when they do they lose. Climate sceptics have the data and the scientific basis that CAGW’ers do not.
An no I am not paid by the fossil fuel industry or the Koch brothers or even Gina Rinehart.
50
Came across this this morning. Sorry if it’s been posted before.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
50
Jo,
Not quite on thread but close imo
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/wastelandia-andrew-weaver-et-als-big-green-choru-and-ymphony-in-the-key-of-gore/
10
Great find, Jo.
Regards
40
Why not? He doesn’t seem to be doing much else. Well, posturing apart.
30
Of Course he reads them, but only as long as they tell him how great and wonderful he is. /snark
30
I’m tipping that’s WHY he’s following them…
00
more MSM fakery:
7 June: SMH: Bloomberg: Climate fund beats $US30b goal
Japan and Norway topped a list of industrialised nations that beat a $US30 billion ($31 billion) funding goal for climate-protection projects in poorer countries, Climate Analytics said as it urged better coordination in future rounds…
The $US9.8 billion of funds delivered by the 27-nation European Union almost met its fair share, while the U.S. undershot on $US7.5 billion, Climate Analytics said. Seventy-one percent of the total finance went to emission-reduction ventures rather than adaptation projects such as water conservation or flood defense, today’s report shows…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-fund-beats-us30b-goal-20130607-2ntrg.html
reality:
16 May: RespondingToClimateChange: EU fast start finance claims ‘misleading’ say observers
“These figures are misleading. A big portion of the EU Fast Start Finance consists of loans, and these funds will return to EU member states, with an interest. Why should poor people pay the bill for rich people’s emissions?” said Söderberg…
“Many EU member states have changed the label on existing funds, from ‘development aid’ to ‘climate finance’. In extreme cases it may lead to situations where HIV/AIDS projects in southern Africa are closed, to enable investments in windmills in emerging economies,” warned Söderberg…
http://www.rtcc.org/eu-fast-start-finance-claims-misleading/
23 May: StandardDigitalNews: Delegates meeting in South Africa raise alarm on use of Climate funds
Speaking at a conference in South Africa, Mithika Mwenda said as things stand, it is difficult to say whether even what has been released as climate finance reaches to deserving people and projects.
Further, he added that only an estimated 19 to 26 per cent of fast-start financing is allocated to programmes and projects in Africa, half of which come in the form of loans…
At the 18th Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Doha, Qatar last November, developed countries claimed they over-delivered to the tune of $33 billion although independent analyses by a number of civil society groups show that less than one third of these funds are new and additional…
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000084261&story_title=delegates-raise-alarm-on-use-of-climate-funds
10
no change even if the govt changes?
Analysts split on future Australia carbon price
BEIJING, June 6 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Analysts are divided over whether a fall in Australian greenhouse gas emissions will cause a surplus of permits in the nation’s carbon market when it starts in 2015, while uncertainty over its future could mean the government will sell permits at a discount to EU allowances…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2404734?&ref=searchlist
NZ carbon slips to 3-mth low as foresters offload permits
BEIJING, June 6 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Spot permits in New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme ended Thursday at NZ$1.87, down 3 cents week-on-week as foresters swapped the units for cheaper U.N. credits…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2404895?&ref=searchlist
U.N. climate talks stalled as Russia seeks rule change
LONDON, June 6 (Reuters Point Carbon) – U.N. climate talks in Bonn remained stalled for a fourth day on Thursday as Russia, Belarus and Ukraine sought to address what they said is a lack of formal decision-making rules after the countries were snubbed at a previous meeting…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2405534?&ref=searchlist
00
What they did was worse than just retweeting the falacious study, they embellished it.
The Cook survey never said anything about “dangerous”. The Obama activists just added that. It’s amazing that he allows such dishonesty in his name.
10
I do hope no one is surprised that Obama is a fraud from start to finish.
The truth is not in him and it is utterly hopeless to expect otherwise.
BB
10
Independent? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… …ha ha ha ha ha… …ROFLAMRRAO.
The celebrity president — yes, the fool and his wife are treated like they had a star in the Hollywood Walk of Fame — should pay a little attention to his damned job! He might manage to avoid the daily scandal syndrome he’s caught in at the moment — not that he cares one way or another.
In the words of a once well known song:
It suits this president and his followers right down to the last pinfeather.
If you expect nothing from him you’ll never be disappointed. His whole life is one long bluff from one day to the next. And someday that bluff will be called. There’s no way to know whether politically, militarily of by an angry mob. But it will be called.
To misuse a famous quote: You can screw some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time. But you can’t screw all the people all the time. And that’s what he’s trying to do right now. It will catch him sooner or later.
10
I am struck by his personal use of the account. If I recall, Clinton had a dog named bo. And there is the old song about “Me and You and a Dog Named bo(o)”. Lots of bos around.
00