Unfortunately, despite all our scientific advances and supposed advances in rationality, there is still one lingering and debated issue…whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. If you’re a person who enjoys the Kochs or believes everything the CATO Institute tells you, this is directed towards you. In 2013 a study was completed by and authored by nine different scientists ranging from climate scientists at the University of Queensland to geological scientists at Memorial University of Newfoundland. The article, titled, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientiﬁc literature”, apart from being one of the best articles on climate science I have ever seen, without a doubt proves the human influence on the environment. Specifically, the authors, Cook et al., took over 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles published in journals examining climate science over the past 20 years and found that “papers rejecting the consensus on AGW…[make up]…a vanishingly small proportion of the published research” (Cook et al.). Specifically, the study found that literally less than 1% of all the papers published and studied rejected the anthropogenic thesis. When one churns the math (.007 * 11,944 papers = 83.6, rounded to 84), 84 out of the over 10,000 papers rejected the thesis that climate change is anthropogenic and, as per the study, that already amazingly small percentage is shrinking (Cook et al.).
So this is a paper I’ve been working on for a few weeks and, of course, I wanted to share it with you. The paper itself is rather lengthy and formatted just the way I want it so I won’t post the full thing here, rather, I will post the coverphoto linking to the PDF that you can download. Before that however, I do want to explain the paper and write an abstract.
The paper is meant to be a building block, or more precisely the building block for my ethical philosophy and how I view humans in relation to nature. The paper is lengthy because I feel I must defend my worldview with everything I have and thus I will not half ass it.
Abstract: Human growth has been increasing at an unprecedented and exponential rate and the harm the we are doing to the biosphere is becoming irreparable. What’s more, the entirety of the industrialized world is rooted in one mindset, that of anthropocentrism – that is, the belief that humans are the center of everything – and this mindset is allowing for the moral justification for the death of the natural. I question the premise that humans are special and worth more than other creatures or nature and I propose a solution, while potentially a pipedream, that would help restore balance to the biosphere.
So, if you all have any comments or criticisms, please leave them below and I will respond.
Hello Peter, Believe it or not, the Climate Science Coalition of America has been a volunteer organization to date. As Executive Director, I receive no salary or payment of any kind. CSCA will accept contributions, but I have not pursued them. I earn my keep by selling books and speaking to audiences about environmental issues. Cheers! Steve Steve Goreham Executive Director Climate Science Coalition of America <http://www.climatescienceamerica.org/> www.climatescienceamerica.org 815-462-8924
To which I replied with:
I'm sorry to say but that did not answer the question I posed. The question I posed was how does the organization actually get its money, not the salary status of the members. So I shall pose it again, how does the CSCA get the money to run a website and further a scientific think tank? Assuming it comes solely from contributions, which you seemingly alluded to before, are you willing to share the breakdown of company's v. individual's contributions and would you be willing to divulge some of the major contributor's names? Thank you!
This is a letter I wrote to the Climate Science Coalition of America asking about their funding. Hopefully they shall respond and I shall you updated. In addition, I would like to post selected passages from the Director’s book, “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism” and respond to them as time goes on.
I received a copy of Steve Goreham’s book “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism” and after reading through it and reading about the author (whose credentials seem rather shady), I am left wondering the following: where does the funding for this organization come from?
You say on the side bar of the site “Help us to provide the American people with an independent, /unbiased/ source of information on climate science” but I know from running a website that you cannot rely solely on donations unless they are large donations in which case they probably come from specific individuals or specific organizations who have influence. Thus the question becomes, are you willing to share a breakdown of your funds or better yet, give the names of companies or CEOs that contribute to the research?
Good science does this and seeing as this is an attempt at a legitimate scientific inquiry, I can only hope you will do the same. If your aim truly is to educate the American people about the “Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism”, I think the populace should have an idea of where your funds come from.
Thanks in advance for the reply and I hope a legitimate discussion can be had. You can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org or visit my blog petersaysstuff.blogspot.com