20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

[bver_hunter]

Toronto doesnt get tornadoes, you genius :biggrin1:

Oh and thanks for being so tolerant of my opinion, you tolerance-preaching Liberal you

So the one that hit Vaughan in 2009 does not count as a tornado. Really!!

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

So the one that hit Vaughan in 2009 does not count as a tornado. Really!!

Vaughan =/= Toronto you genius :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Vaughan =/= Toronto you genius :biggrin1:

What next, you're going to say your house never gets tornados?

Hey, even Chevron says climate change is real.

CHEVRON’S LAWYER, SPEAKING FOR MAJOR OIL COMPANIES, SAYS CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND IT’S YOUR FAULT
In a court hearing in San Francisco, oil companies publicly backed the science of climate change

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/...co-oakland-lawsuits-judge-alsup-chevron-exxon

'Course they're probably still funding your favourite denier kook sites...

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

What next, you're going to say your house never gets tornados?

Yes Frankie, my house never gets tornadoes....LOL

W
Hey, even Chevron says climate change is real.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/...co-oakland-lawsuits-judge-alsup-chevron-exxon

'Course they're probably still funding your favourite denier kook sites...

Oh noes........ if Chevron says tornadoes in Toronto are real, then it must be so......LOL :biggrin1:

There's a HUGE kook here, but it isnt Chevron

 

[Moviefan-2]

I'm guessing the signatories to this warning won't be too pleased to learn that energy demand increased more than two per cent last year, and was mostly met (72%) through an increased use of fossil fuels.

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf

China was one of the countries leading the way. Well, so much for China's "historic" agreement with Barack Obama and China's alleged commitment to the Paris agreement. :beguiled:

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I'm guessing the signatories to this warning won't be too pleased to learn that energy demand increased more than two per cent last year, and was mostly met (72%) through an increased use of fossil fuels.

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf

China was one of the countries leading the way. Well, so much for China's "historic" agreement with Barack Obama and China's alleged commitment to the Paris agreement. :beguiled:

You didnt get the memo???????????

MASSIVE tornado headed for Toronto right now.......LOL :beguiled:

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

What next, you're going to say your house never gets tornados?

Hey, even Chevron says climate change is real

Oh noes Frankie............so I should duck and cover for a Toronto tornado right now???!!! :fear:

 

[bver_hunter]

Vaughan =/= Toronto you genius :biggrin1:

Vaughan is part of the GTA. Genius!!:whoo:

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Vaughan is part of the GTA. Genius!!:whoo:

Oh noes, a tornado should hit Toronto (or the GTA) any day now

 

[managee]

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

As Just Facts grows in prominence and reputation, an increasing number of scholars, major organizations, and eminent people have cited and recognized the quality work of Just Facts. With this higher profile, Just Facts has also been subject to deceitful attacks. A recent example of such comes from “Media Bias Fact Check,” an “independent media outlet” that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.”

In the opening paragraph of her review of Just Facts, Media Bias Fact Check contributor Faith Locke Siewert writes:

On their article http://www.justfacts.com/racialissues.asp#affirmative, they use the Richard Sander’s (law professor at UCLA) essay “A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.” To support much of their hypothesis, obviously against affirmative action (seeming also to support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior).

Those two sentences contain three demonstrable falsehoods:

“A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools” is not just an essay. It is a peer-reviewed journal paper that was published in the Stanford Law Review. Big difference.
Just Facts does not use this paper to support “much of” its research on affirmative action. The research contains more than 60 footnotes, and this paper is just one of them. Just Facts’ full research on racial issues has 498 footnotes, and this paper is two of them.
Just Facts does not offer any “hypothesis” in this research, much less “support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior.” To the contrary, the opening section of Just Facts’ research on racial issues covers the topic of science and presents multiple facts that challenge that notion.
The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.


https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest/


http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/


Media Bias Fact Check

MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”


Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services.


Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria,

Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”

Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

“t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.

“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …

“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”

But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.

“Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.”


Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/#mmFjA5mVmRym3oHW.99

With an author name like Schilling, I’m sure it’s all super-legit.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WND

 

[managee]

I wandered into a very strange conversation with a person last week whom I couldn’t tell whether they were in some kind of mental health crisis, cognitively challenged or just alt-right, but it prompted me to search “does alt-right believe in smog.”

This is what I found:

Air Pollution Denial Is the New Climate Denial

The latest right-wing lie is even crazier than the supposed global warming "hoax." But it's gaining influence in the Trump administration.

By EMILY ATKIN

March 15, 2017

It was known as the Great Pea Soup. In 1952, a thick, greenish-yellow fog smothered London, halting traffic and daily life. At the time, when households burned cheap coal for heat, factories spewed unregulated smoke, and buses burned diesel fuel, Londoners were used to a certain degree of greasy haze. But the Great Smog or Big Smoke, as this 1952 pea-souper was also known, was unprecedented. Bitterly cold air “soaked up the pollution and held it like a blanket over the city” for four days straight, according to the Daily Mail. Twelve thousand people died.

Sixty-five years later, our scientific understanding of air pollution has advanced immeasurably. We now know—because of events like the Great Pea Soup, but also a groundbreaking 1993 Harvard University study of smog-ridden U.S. cities and countless research papers since then—that short-term and long-term exposure to air pollution can kill people, particularly those with pre-existing conditions. “The evidence is so large,” said C. Arden Pope, a professor at Brigham Young University world-renowned researcher of air pollution’s impacts on human health. “There are very few people conducting this research and publishing it in the peer-reviewed literature who don’t think fine particles pollution can lead to death.”

There are, indeed, very few people who believe air pollution—specifically “fine particulate” pollution, or PM2.5—doesn’t cause death. Those who do, however, are getting louder and gaining influence in conservative political circles and inside President Donald Trump’s administration. These air-pollution deniers have just one hope: the repeal of clean-air regulations that have long protected Americans’ health.

At last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), during a little-noticed panel on climate change and environmental regulation, air pollution denial was rampant and went unchallenged. Steve Milloy, formerly a paid flack for the tobacco and fossil fuel industries and member of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, argued that excessive air pollution is not linked to premature death. “My particular interest is air pollution,” Milloy said, alleging that EPA’s scientists are inherently biased. “These people validate and rubber-stamp the EPA’s conclusion that air pollution kills people.” Milloy also said, baselessly, that EPA scientists are “paying for the science it wants,” and that Trump must change the research process at the agency.


It is extensively proven, and widely accepted, that air pollution can harm humans, which is why the government regulates it. PM2.5 refers to tiny particles that are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter—small enough to penetrate deep into the circulatory system and potentially infiltrate the central nervous system. The particles range in composition, originating anywhere from cement dust to tobacco smoke to pollen. They are currently regulated under the Clean Air Act, a widely popular law passed in 1963 that has seen major amendments receiving unanimous or overwhelming support in the Senate. The CAA currently requires Congress to set what’s known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter.

Even Breitbart, the alt-right media organization with close ties to Trump, seems to accept that air pollution is bad for human health. It has published dozens of articles over the years—many from wire services, but some from its own contributors—that report, without opinion, about studies on the issue. “The chronic problem of pollution in China has been linked to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths,” Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart’s Rome bureau chief, wrote in 2015. “The fine particles are believed to play a role in cardiovascular disease, lung problems, cancer, and emphysema.” Earlier this month, Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel B. Pollack reported, “Air quality in some East Asian capitals is famously poor, with residents of Beijing taking extreme measures to avoid the health risks associated with heavy pollution.”

But Breitbart has also provided a platform for those leading the charge for air pollution denial. Last year, it published a column by Milloy titled, “How stupid is air pollution ‘science’?” And earlier this month, Breitbart columnist James Delingpole—who usually sticks to columns attacking climate science—joined the fray. In an article declaring that “The EPA’s Air Pollution Scare Is Just Another Fake News Myth,” Delingpole took issue with the most recent State of Global Air report, which found that air pollution contributed to 4.2 million deaths in 2015, because the study was partly funded by the EPA—while conveniently ignoring that it was also funded by 23 car companies and Exxon Mobil. Delingpole cited Milloy exclusively and extensively, linking to Milloy’s “fact sheet” on air pollution.

“Frankly, it’s full of stuff and nonsense,” said Janice Nolen, the assistant vice president of national policy at the American Lung Association, referring to Milloy’s fact sheet. “Particle pollution is one of the most researched topics in the scientific world, and has been reviewed extensively.”

There are pages of false claims in Milloy’s sheet, but a few are particularly egregious. He argues that two renowned air pollution studies that established the basic connection between PM2.5 and death—the aforementioned Harvard study and one by Pope, the BYU professor—have controversial methodologies that cannot be resolved because scientists refuse to make the raw data available. “For results to be considered to be scientifically credible, they must be capable of being independently replicated,” Milloy writes. This claim is the basis of a Republican-led bill currently being pushed through the House of Representatives.

There are several problems with this line of argument. The raw data Milloy seeks is private medical information on human subjects who were assured confidentiality when they participated in these studies. “There’s this issue if this data becomes public, will anyone be able to go and knock on these people’s doors?” said Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou, an environmental health professor at Columbia University. Long-term health data is also difficult to reproduce because the people who participated in the study have grown up; many likely have died. This is why, scientists say, many public health studies simply can’t be replicated. (The Harvard study, however, was successfully replicated in 2001 by the Health Effects Institute, which is funded by EPA, the motor vehicle industry, and the oil and gas industry. A similar reanalysis was published in 2005.)

Milloy and Delingpole also claim that “not one single” epidemiological or toxicological study has ever shown that particulate pollution directly caused a death, either in the short term or due to prolonged exposure. Kioumourtzoglou says this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientists classify cause of death. When people die, they are given an International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code to signify what happened, and there is no ICD code for pollution. “If you died of a heart attack, you get the ICD code for a heart attack,” she said. “If exposure to PM2.5 has caused a heart attack, on your death certificate, it would still say heart attack, not PM2.5.”

Pope, whose study was one of the first to establish the connection between short-term exposure to fine particulate matter and death, also said Milloy’s claim misunderstands the type of person who dies from exposure. A perfectly healthy person is not going to croak from a short jog through haze. But people who are already unhealthy—who have asthma, or cardiovascular or heart disease—should be worried. “We often refer to it as triggering,” Pope said. “Particulates will trigger these acute events, such as heart attack.”

This is not to say that the research on this subject is flawless. Kioumourtzoglou, unlike Milloy, has lead and published studies on problems with the scientific methods surrounding the impact of particulate matter pollution on human health. Scientists cannot strap pollution monitors onto humans and follow them around for years at a time, so sometimes they rely on models that predict air pollution concentrations at certain locations and times. “We have to rely on less than perfect measurements,” she said. “And these are known to induce error.”

The error, however, is exactly the opposite of what Milloy claims. Kioumourtzoglou’s research has found that current air pollution measuring methods tend to understate the effects of air pollution. “In reality,” she said, “the effects are even worse than documented.”

The good news is, Milloy and Delingpole remain outliers in a sea of evidence. As ThinkProgress pointed out last month, “The Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health, the American Lung Association, and the United Nations all link air pollution to increased risk of asthma, heart disease, and stroke. In 2013, the WHO even concluded that air pollution could be categorized as a human carcinogen.” Even Breitbart, as indicated above, has published uncritical articles about these organizations’ findings.

The bad news is, we already know that outliers can have disproportionate impact on policy. Just look at the debate surrounding climate change. Despite near-consensus in the scientific community, one third of Congress are climate change deniers, as are Trump and his new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt. What’s more, they’re using their fact-free ideology to dismantle policies that slow climate change. Trump is expected to issue an executive order this week undoing the Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon emissions from fossil fuel plants. He is also considering withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the landmark international accord to stop global warming.

Milloy and Delingpole surely would like air-pollution deniers to have a similar impact on national policy. Given Milloy’s closeness to Trump’s inner circle, and Breitbart’s growing influence on the White House, and it doesn’t seem so far-fetched. But even if that doesn’t come to pass, these deniers have already succeeded in shaping—or rather, creating—a debate that no politician or scientist should rightly entertain. And that debate is now a public reality. Milloy’s “fact sheet,” for instance, is the first result in a Google search of “PM 2.5 science.” A legitimate scientific article is second.

https://newrepublic.com/article/141260/air-pollution-denial-new-climate-denial

 

[managee]

Oh noes, a tornado should hit Toronto (or the GTA) any day now

Does the far-right not believe in tornadoes either? TTC buses go to the intersection where the tornado damaged 600 homes in 2009. There’s a subway stop 2x major intersections away from where the tornado touched down.

https://weather.gc.ca/mainmenu/contact_us_e.html

Just thought I’d give you a link to those idiots who sent out the tornado warning for Toronto last summer. They need to be taken to the Church of McNasty.

 

[canada-man]

With an author name like Schilling, I’m sure it’s all super-legit.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WND

rational wiki is not a credible source

 

[managee]

rational wiki is not a credible source

And WND is?

HILLARY CARTOONIST FIRES BACK AT RACISM CLAIM
'Gotta be pretty slow news day out there ... that they would try and twist it'
Published: 08/30/2016 at 7:41 PM

WASHINGTON – In yet another attempt by the mainstream media to connect Donald J. Trump to “racism,” the Washington Post has attacked a political cartoon published back in April by WND cartoonist Tony “A.F.” Branco.

The April 2016 cartoon in question depicts, as Branco told WND.com in an exclusive interview, “Hillary Clinton pandering to the black community for their votes.”

In the cartoon, Hillary Clinton is in blackface, holding a sign reading “#@!* the Police,” wearing a shirt saying “No Hot Sauce, No Peace!” and with the caption, “I ain’t no ways tired of pandering to African-Americans.”

“It should be fairly obvious what I was doing there, with Hillary giving a speech in front of an African-American group back April about always having hot sauce in her purse and she is holding up a ‘F— the Police’ sign in solidarity with Black Lives Matter,” Branco said.

Get “Hillary’s America: The Secret History Of The Democratic Party,” “America” Imagine The World Without Her,” “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” and more, from Dinesh D’Souza at the WND Superstore.

Branco told WND, “It’s gotta be pretty slow news day out there to be picking on a cartoon/cartoonist that they would try and twist it into a racist connection to Donald Trump. And it’s a black pastor who they are going after for posting of all things! A person of color posted it … and the mainstream media went after it! Just incredible.”

Branco is referencing pastor Mark Burns, who posted the Clinton cartoon on his Twitter account, only to delete the image and apologize for spreading it.

Burns is an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump, and a Washington Post story quickly appeared with the intent, Branco told WND, of getting him to also distance himself from his very own drawing.

“What the mainstream media did to pastor Burns is just disgusting, putting him through the meat grinder,” he said.

Branco said, “I believe the media is unfairly doing whatever little thing they can to frame Trump in a certain light, and ignore every negative about Hillary. They are focused on the wrong part of the cartoon – black face – as opposed to her pandering of black people. Just using them as votes and not solving any of their issues.”

The cartoonist stressed he is not a spokesman for the Republican nominee for president, though he does support Trump.

“The mainstream media continues to an all-time low. There is no journalism anymore. Used to think of them as referees, making sure things were fair. It’s no longer the case. Mainstream media today is nothing more than an arm of the DNC and with this attack on pastor Burns and my cartoon, it’s obvious they are in full campaign mode for her.”

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, the author of “The Antidote: Healing America From the Poison of Hate, Blame and Victimhood,” found the attempts to link a nearly six-month old political cartoon as proof of Trump’s “racism” to be further evidence of the mainstream media’s blatant pro-Hillary stance.

He told WND, “It says that they’re dishonest and deceptive. It also shows that they’re not fair in their coverage, and that they’re shameless in their support for Hillary Clinton. The MSM is not reporting the truth and allowing people the opportunity to make up their own minds about the candidates. This is propaganda, not journalism!”

Peterson also noted the disingenuous nature of Hillary outreach to the black community.

He said, “I see crooked Hillary and lying Hillary. I see Hillary trying to get black votes by pretending to relate to them in a very shallow and condescending manner. I see a phony liberal politician who will say and do just about anything to keep blacks on the Democrat’s plantation. The cartoon is very truthful. Hillary hasn’t held a press conference in some 200 days, because she doesn’t want the people to see who she really is; she’s hiding.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/hillary-cartoonist-fires-back-at-racism-claim/

Personally, I found that cartoon, particularly the sign, the text in the text bubble, the shirt and the blackface to be offensive, but maybe I just don’t get it. Hillary’s pandering was fair game.

I wonder what a “news” magazine with a section titled “faith” thought about Pence being named Dotard’s running-mate?

This superstore seems like a one-stop shop for (*cough) free-thinkers.

Link to WND Prepper Stuff

Link to WND Homeschooling Stuff

 

[LT56]

rational wiki is not a credible source

LOL...Of all people to be talking about the importance of credible sources! Too funny!

 

[Moviefan-2]

Does the far-right not believe in tornadoes either?

In an interview last year, Bernie Sanders supporter Camille Paglia described man-made global warming as a "sentimental myth unsupported by evidence."

The "far-right"-wing conspiracy must indeed be quite vast if it includes Ms Paglia.

 

[canada-man]

LOL...Of all people to be talking about the importance of credible sources! Too funny!

rational wiki is heavily biased towards leftists SJW propaganda and was sued for libel

 

[managee]

In an interview last year, Bernie Sanders supporter Camille Paglia described man-made global warming as a "sentimental myth unsupported by evidence."

The "far-right"-wing conspiracy must indeed be quite vast if it includes Ms Paglia.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

 

[canada-man]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

a less biased article without the insults that rational wiki uses

 

[managee]

rational wiki is heavily biased towards leftists SJW propaganda and was sued for libel

Are you talking about Kent E. Hovind v. RationalMedia Foundation?