This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Friends of Science:
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I have some trouble with the statement.
Of course, 3 decades of satellite data cannot show a "change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures", as three decades is to short for any long-term analysis. However, it can show a change in the temperature. It can show an increase in temperature (or a lack of the same). But what is a "no change in the rate of increase of temperature"? Are they claiming it getting warmer at a constant rate?
I suspect they want(ed) to claim that the satellite temperature record shows no increase in temperature (it does, but some early interpretations failed to show this, as they failed to account for orbital decay and other problems).
But given that parts of the statement are, read literally, nonsensical: Do we report what they say or what they try to say? -- Stephan Schulz 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, if you're interested in the prehistory of all this, the FoS current statement (which as Stephan says is nearly incomprehensible) didn't originally say that. They had: Temperatures have increased around built-up areas ("heat islands"), but satellite, balloon and long term mountain top observations have observed no increase at all. [1]. Of course it wasn't true in march 2005 - see the sat rec page (and wasn't true re the urban/rural stuff either - see the UHI page for refs) - and sometime after that they must have realised it was unsupportable and replaced it with something incoherent instead. Which is also insupportable, of course, but less obviously so William M. Connolley 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that this sums up the goals of the FoS? "Friends of Science aims to assist the Canadian Government in examining the science and data behind the Kyoto Protocol, and the Global Warming debate." Tynedanu 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You were right and I changed the goal to quote their web site, and added a link. Sorry about that, I'm just a newbie! Tynedanu 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the reference to the claim that "FoS has been criticised as an act of Astroturfing with close links to the oil industry". The reference leads to a blog, which does not seem to meet Wikipedia strict standards about such sources. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources :
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Now, Stephan Shultz, a known climate change believer, has removed this tag twice, the last time on the ground that "The blog article is the claim".
Now, if we are to allow such claims that circulate on blogs all over the internet, everything on Wikipedia will be criticized.
The Astroturf accusation sould be removed unless properly sourced. Please give feedbacks. -- Childhood's End 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, this article should be renamed "Criticism of Friends of Science", as it now contains more stuff about criticizing it than describing it. Or should we add information about the claims made by FoS so that it becomes a bit more relevant to spend as much space on one single statement that they made? -- Childhood's End 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I undid UbER's edit removing the large section of the Criticism section. I would like UbER or anyone else to please discuss and explain why this is Inappropriate Synthesis and then, when their point has been proven and a consensus reached, redo the edit. I will continue to undo the edit and keep the article in its current state if it is not discussed. JoeyETS 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I'm not inherently opposed to the section being removed, I just want to make sure it's not being removed because of bias. Bias from both sides of the Global Warming debate is ever-present in edits of this article, so I'm over-cautious. I see UbER's point, he's quite right, but I agree with Yilloslime that it should stay in until a proper source for scientific criticism. JoeyETS 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Three points in repsonse to Childhood's End: 1. An uncritical description of FoS or most any controversial group is inherently biased toward that group's POV. 2. The criticism under debate is not "invalid/fraudulent" as you describe. The issue is it's the criticism of a wikipedia editor, not an outside source. 3. Though the disputed material violates WP:SYN, I'd like to also point everyone's attention to WP:IAR which I would argue applies here. Of course, we could have our cake and eat it too, if someone would find a published criticism of FoS that says essentially what the OR says. Yilloslime 18:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I reinserted the claims made by FoS, with links to the articles that show they are false, but without any refutation in the text. I suppose that's the way the rules say we should do it, though it makes for a rather whack-a-mole approach to front groups like this, that reappear every few years under different names, making the same bogus claims. JQ 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I find that this article is not neutral. It's ridden with criticism. I agree with Childhoodsend, the article should be titled Criticisms of FoS in it's current form. I think that there should be a separate subheading for criticism, but please, let's try to keep the body of the article unbiased. Tynedanu 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Right now as it stands the article has nothing to do with the Friends of science and more to do with unsubstantiated criticism therof. Do you really think you would see an entry like this in a real encyclopedia? I doubt it. The section on funding is entirely irrelevant and outright slanderous. The evidence for some collusion with oil companies is non existent and links to some guys biased blog as some sort of evidence. The reality on funding is that FOS receives its donations from individual people and only once received money from Talisman to produce a video. http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2245155
In any event the funding for a non-profit group does not require disclosure by Canadian tax law so why is it discussed here? If they we're a charitable organization fine, but the whole section on funding should go or actually have some evidence of being funded by oil comanies.
Lets get real for a moment and just say what they are about and leave it at that. If you disagree with them or their statements vote accordingly or write a letter to the editor. ( Cam MacKay ( talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC))
Not only that,(although I whole heartedly agree with you Cam MacKay) but just who are the "critics" honestly a blanket "critics" of any organization is not allowed in any other business' or organization's Wiki page, why is it allowed here? As a matter of fact is a critic even able to be mentioned in any other organizations Wiki? (Outside of the global warming associated Wiki)Is Wikipedia in the business of being an objective encyclopedia or a nonobjective publication? It would seem in most cases it is indeed objective but when it comes to Organizations and Businesses associated with Global Warming issues, there is always a critics statement that is given equal space! -- 75.17.215.115 ( talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC) J. Scott
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO ( talk) 13:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Why the heavy-handed attempts to link this group to the oil and gas industry? It makes the article nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Some of the sources used are obviously biased and highly questionable. Worse, even if we accept their statements at face value, the entire organization's funding is a trifle (under $100K/annually), and its unclear if even a non-negligible percentage of that comes from energy firms. Innuendo implifying conflict of interest here seems highly farfetched.
Further, there's the issue of undue weight, when a brief article about an organization is overpowered by focusing on funding allegations. FellGleaming ( talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
-- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some effort to debate global warming within the lede of the article. While some measure of this is useful within the article itself, a simple statement of the groups's view is encyclopedic and useful here. FellGleaming ( talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
FOS say We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. [5] but this appears to be a porky [6]. Should we mention this? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The graph shown at right does not seem to be from the FoS website, and AFAICS does not represent any data on that site. Additionally, the trend lines placed on this image are misleading in nature as they span two distict epochs with differing rates of change. The image's own wiki entry containg links to two other images of temperature graphs, neither of which seem to agree with the generally accepted findings of HadCRUT, BEST, GISS etc that aggregate land and ocean surface temperatures have not significantly increased since 2001. This arises mainly because these graphs are out of date, showing data to only 2000 or 2005, and that five year averages have been applied which effectively shorten the series still further.
In summary, this image neither represents the opinions of the FoS site, nor does it represent the mainstream consensus of understanding of global temperatures, as of 2014.
I would suggest replacing this image with GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg
I also suggest that the other outdated and therefore misleading graphs be either updated, or deleted.
Owing to controversy flag I have not performed this edit, but leave it up to admins to decide. -- Anteaus ( talk) 07:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Hello, I am the Communications Manager of Friends of Science Society and new at Wikipedian-ing - so please bear with me if I make mistakes. I have already made a couple. I am identifying my position right off the top in light of the COI policy, and I have opened a new account as advised (that is not as 'corporate') and I will be writing/contributing to other articles of interest.
I appreciate that the Wiki policy is to edit controversial topics like climate change from the mainstream point of view. None-the-less, I hope you will review the codes of conduct/principles of two major science organizations which refer 'hard-nosed skepticism' as an essential part of scientific inquiry. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=1 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=24 http://archives.aaas.org/docs/1975-ScientificFreedomResponsibility.pdf
The present content on the Friends of Science Society wiki page is not reflective of the group's activities or purpose, or the level of scientific review. The point here is that Friends of Science is not a group of tin-foil hatted contrarians, but people of substantial scientific background. This is not reflected on the present page. I propose some material - rewrite at will.
Suggestions: 1. The present article states Friends of Science Society is a non-profit advocacy group.
Proposed (to this effect): Friends of Science Society is a non-profit society engaged in climate change literature review, research and commentary on climate and energy policies, and general education on the diverse factors affecting climate change. The group advocates for the impact of solar variability on climate change. This is contrary to the established mainstream scientific position on the subject and the generally accepted view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
(Note: Friends of Science Society does exactly the same kind of thing the IPCC does - no original research, but a review of peer-reviewed and academic literature)
2. The present article does not say that the founders and many members are actual scientists or working with physical science principles. By stating only that the group is an 'advocacy' group as presently stated, this makes it sound like a fringe or fake group with no relevant knowledge.
Proposed: The core board and founding members are earth and atmospheric scientists, solar physicists and engineers, as are many of the members. Friends of Science Society holds the position that ‘the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change’ and though humans have an impact, in their view it is nominal compared to that of natural forces.
3. The article lacks references to what the group does do.
Proposed: Friends of Science Society does not do original research. Rather, like the IPCC, the society does literature review, issuing commentaries and reports reflecting the group’s perspective. Most of these are published on their website, through PRWeb or Troy Media. Friends of Science Society also hosts expert guest speakers on various topics of climate science, climate policy or related economics. The events are video-taped and available for viewing online. ( http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=308)
Friends of Science also issues a quarterly newsletter, bi-weekly “Friends of Science Extracts” reviewing global news on climate policy and energy, and “Cli-Sci” a review of climate change science news and academic papers.
4.In the opening section of the present article, there is no reference to the early published debate between Pembina Institute and Friends of Science Society advisers and member which was published in the APEGA Journal "The Pegg" in Nov. 2002. This is relevant because Friends of Science made a scientific argument while Pembina Institute relied upon Kyoto. Friends of Science Society opposed Kyoto on grounds of scientific uncertainty, the scientific evidence that the Friends say supports the solar-impact view, and the potential economic burden.
Proposed (to follow from existing sentence): [EXISTING SENTENCE;The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year.[2][3]....]
In November 2002, a debate on the topic of Kyoto was published in The Pegg, the journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Arguing for Kyoto were two members of the Pembina Institute; arguing that the sun is the driver of climate change were Friends of Science Society’s scientific advisers Dr. Sallie Baliunas, and Dr. Tim Patterson along with Friends of Science member Allan MacRae, P. Eng.
5. Corrections - Sallie Baliunas is not a scientific adviser to Friends of Science; Douglas Leahy is not the President.
6. Lack of material related to valid, international research on the impact of solar variability on climate change.
Proposed:
Scientists Supporting Solar-Climate Link
Scientists in the field of solar physics whose work Friends of Science Society follows and reviews include: Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel), Henrik Svensmark (National Space Institute, Danish Technical University, Denmark http://www.space.dtu.dk/english/Research/Climate_and_Environment ), Willie Soon (United States), Khabibullov Abdussamatov (Astrophysicist and head of space research at the Pulkovo Observatory, Russia /info/en/?search=Khabibullo_Abdusamatov ), Silvia Duhau (Argentina), Ivanka Charvatova (Czech Rep.), Hans Jelbring (Sweden), Nils-Axel Mörner (Sweden), Nicola Scafetta (U.S.A.), Ilya Usoskin (Finland), to mention a few - in fact see the solar system as the main driver of climate change in terms of planetary orbital forces and variations in the rate and type of the sun's "solar wind". Some of these prominent scientists are forecasting imminent drastic cooling based on study of a thousand years of observed cyclical patterns of solar activity and their effect on earth’s climate.
According to several of these experts, the IPCC’s assessment of solar physics is extremely limited, and does not fairly represent the influence of solar variability (in its many forms) on Earth’s climate.
In fact the original mandate of the IPCC was to review and report on the human-causes of climate change. ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22 )
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.”
In 2013, the government of The Netherlands called for numerous changes to the IPCC to include natural factors and provide timely reporting. http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf
“The IPCC needs to adjust its principles. We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change. The Netherlands is also of the opinion that the word ‘comprehensive’ may have to be deleted, because producing comprehensive assessments becomes virtually impossible with the ever expanding body of knowledge and IPCC may be more relevant by producing more special reports on topics that are new and controversial.”
7. The present article repeats the story of the science fund and Barry Cooper's involvement at the U of C twice. There is a discrepancy in the dates (one is 2002 and the other is 2005). This is also 'news' from about 7 years ago, yet has page prominence as if this is the only relevant matter about Friends of Science.
Proposed - combine two sections of story under specific headline, delete repetitious content:
Science Research Fund Controversy
8. Dr. James Buckee is mentioned - but no reference is made to the fact that he is an Oxford-trained astrophysicist.
Proposed: Prior to reference to Talisman funding, include something like:
An early supporter and member of Friends of Science was Dr. Jim Buckee, an Oxford-trained astrophysicist. He was also CEO of Talisman Energy. [1]
9. You may wish to include the following facts: Dr. Buckee has also given lectures on how the sun drives climate at leading universities.
[2]
10. Recently Dr. Buckee supported the world's largest radio astronomy project at University of Western Australia, International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR). [3]
11. Early work included challenging the Naomi Oreskes "Consensus" essay:
Proposed:
Challenging Naomi Oreskes’ “Consensus” Essay of 2004
Friends of Science Society sent a letter to Naomi Oreskes challenging the claims of her much-cited ‘consensus essay published in Science Magazine. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full ) Subsequently, in 2006, Friends of Science commissioned Madhav Khandekar to prepare a bibliography of paper’s rebutting the alleged ‘consensus’ view which was sent to Oreskes’ but the group never received a response from her. ( http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=107 )
12. Under "Position" it would be relevant to inform audiences of some publications and references on the topic.
Proposed:
Position
Friends of Science Society’s position is that ‘the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.’ Though not a mainstream view, there is scientific research and evidence, along with numerous peer-reviewed papers that support this position (and researchers noted above). Publications include:
Club du Soleil – list of academic and peer-reviewed papers on the topic: http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
NASA’s publication of the work of solar climate science pioneer John (Jack) Eddy: The Sun, the Earth, and Near-Earth Space: A Guide to the Sun-Earth System - Comprehensive Information on the Effects of Space Weather on Human Life, Climate, Spacecraft http://www.amazon.ca/The-Earth-Near-Earth-Space-Comprehensive-ebook/dp/B00E4PZPUC
An interesting interview with Eddy can be read and heard on the American Institute for Physics site: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/22910
The Neglected Sun: How the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe Paperback – Sep 15 2013 by Fritz Vahrenholt (Author), Sebastian Luning (Author), Pierre Gosselin (Translator) http://www.amazon.ca/The-Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Catastrophe/dp/1909022241 Grand Phases On The Sun: The Case for a Mechanism Responsible for Extended Solar Minima and Maxima http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Phases-The-Sun-Responsible/dp/1466963018/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1396796812&sr=8-3&keywords=Yaskell
13. There is a limited review of Friends of Science activities. Some of them are quite relevant to issues of education, public access to qualified rational, dissenting scientific views on climate change.
Proposed:
In 2012, Friends of Science found that the Alberta Science Teacher’s Journal had published an article entitled “The Role of Educators in Increasing Public Certainty in Climate Change Science” by Stan Bissell
[4] that made derogatory marks about their organization, and that also suggested the media should not cover the climate change story in an equitable fashion.
This led Friends of Science researchers to further investigation of the Alberta School Curriculum that revealed a disturbing tendency toward indoctrination, including an exercise in the Grade Five Science Curriculum wherein children are asked to write down how they would argue the case if “your cousin doesn't believe we should be worried about climate change.” [5]
Friends of Science Society has issued various reports and commentaries on proposed climate policies over the years – these are posted on their home page.
Likewise, the group has featured guest speakers on topics of climate science, policy and energy economics over the past 13 years, the videos and power points for which are available on their website. [6]
In descending order the speakers included: Dr. Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist; Dr. Ross McKitrick, economist; Dr. Benny Peiser, climate policy critic; Donna Laframboice, author and investigative journalist; Dr. Ian Plimer, geologist; Dr. John Christy, atmospheric scientist; Dr. Timothy Ball, climatologist; Dr. Patrick Michaels, climatologist; Dr. Tim Patterson, geologist; Dr. Chris de Freitas, geologist; Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Dr. Timothy Ball, climatologist.
14. Challenging the ethics of climate science bullying - "NASA Faked the Moon Landing..." A critique
In 2013, two colleagues of Friends of Science published a critique of Stephan Lewandowsky's controversial paper "NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science" [7] The critique examined ethical aspects of name-calling and referred to Kipling D. Williams view that there is a 'social kiss of death' in ostracizing people. It is the view of the authors that the title of the Lewandowsky paper created a pejorative and popular internet 'meme' that indiscriminately smears any person questioning climate change - even highly qualified scientists. [8] Social psychology post-doc Jose Duarte claims that an analysis of the data reveals that Lewandowsky et al do not have valid data and writes:
"...What do the data say? Well, out of 1145 participants, only 10 believed the moon landing was a hoax (likely including fakes.) We'll pause here to note that 10 in this context is essentially zero, and we couldn't validly infer links between moon hoaxism and anything else from that number. But it's worse – a majority of these 10 reject the idea that climate science is a hoax – 7 out of the 10. Only 3 participants out of 1145 endorsed the moon hoax and the climate science hoax.
The title being wildly false is bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that it slanders millions of people as believing that the moon landing was a hoax. They don't believe any such thing, according to the authors' own data. Slandering one's participants is a serious ethical breach." [9]
15. There is limited content regarding the controversial billboard campaign which is relevant to Freedom of Speech and Scientific Inquiry.
Proposed:
Controversial Billboard Campaign 2014 and Ad Standards Complaints and Ruling
In January 2014, Friends of Science Society released a report [10] disputing the several consensus studies (Oreskes 2004, Doran & Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010, and Cook 2013). The report claimed the much-cited 97% figure was a ‘social proof’ and that a critical review of the consensus studies showed numerous discrepancies in methods, definitions and claims.
In conjunction with this, the group ran print ads in the Calgary Herald. Upon notice in the press [11] that the World Economic Forum (WEF) was planning a climate change meeting in Banff, Friends of Science ran a digital billboard at the Calgary Airport to welcome the WEF with the Friends of Science message that “The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2.” The story was picked up by European weblog Tallbloke Talkshop [12] but otherwise did not stir any media controversy.
In June 2014, the organization ran a larger billboard campaign during the Calgary Stampede. A series of digital billboards dotted the downtown core. One billboard stated that "the sun is the main driver of climate change." This provoked criticism from, among others, Greenpeace, whose request for their own advertisement to appear on an Alberta billboard had been denied by the same company that displayed Friends of Science's ad.[34]
A major controversy broke out in the media over this and a second billboard that showed the Remote Surface Sensing graph illustrating more than 16 years of no global warming trend (based on Remote Surface Sensing monitor data), and the statement “Global Warming Stopped Naturally 16+ Years Ago.” Numerous media covered the billboard story. [13] [14] [15] [16]
Jason Markusoff, a popular reporter for the Calgary Herald tweeted that finally Calgary made it to SLATE magazine – “for a laughably embarssing reasons.” [17]
In the June-July 014 edition of the Alberta Wilderness Association(AWA)journal, a short editorial condemned the Friends of Science billboard. Friends of Science requested a retraction and were denied the opportunity to rebut.Friends of Science protested in the press that this was not in keeping with the principles of a federally registered charity.
In November of 2014, Friends of Science Society began a low-budget, nation-wide digital billboard media campaign in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. This generated a tremendous public outcry in Quebec, numerous articles in the French-speaking press and resulting in some 96 complaints to the Ad Standards Council of Canada, most of which claimed the billboards (French translations of the English messages) violated the Advertising Standards Codes. One student group at UQAM (Universite du Quebec a Montreal) advocated using the Charter of Rights against Friends of Science. [18]
The campaign was panned by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation director John Bennett, in a blog posting that advocated for an email campaign against the media provider as well as Friends of Science Society. [19] The National Post’s Kelly McParland also wrote an op-ed condemning this blog. [20]
Friends of Science Society publicly criticized Sierra Club Canada Foundation for inciting cyber harassment against the media provider, saying this did not appear to be a charitable activity.
In the spring of 2015, after months of deliberation and a thorough review of submissions from complainants and Friends of Science Society, and an initial finding against the Friends of Science Society, the Ad Standards Council found against the organization based on specific sections of the Ad Standards Code - Clauses 1(b), (e) and 8, acknowledging though that “global warming and climate change are caused by the serious effects of the sun as well as carbon dioxide emissions”. [21]
Friends of Science noted in their on-line statement about the ruling that “Regarding the issue of scientific accuracy, it is unreasonable to expect that a billboard message of ~ 7 words could reflect the scope and nuances of climate science – a complex field.” Ad Standards Council is an industry advisory body; the ruling has no legal power.
16. There is no coverage of an important discussion on 'phase-out coal' in Alberta.
Proposed:
Countering the Alberta Phase-Out Coal Campaign
In 2013 the Pembina Institute issued “A Costly Diagnosis: Subsidizing Coal Power with Albertans’ Health” [22] - a report which stated that Albertans could save $300 million in health care costs and save about 100 people a year from premature death due to respiratory conditions, [23] which the report linked to emissions, primarily fine particulate matter (PM2.5 – smaller than 2.5 microns) from Alberta’s coal-fired power plants.
Friends of Science Society reviewed the evidence and issued a rebuttal report in January 2015 entitled “Burning Questions: An Evidence-based Review of the Alberta Phase-out Coal Campaign.” [24]
Friends of Science claims that Pembina Institute has exaggerated the risks of coal-fired power plants citing Environment Canada statistics that coal-fired power plants emitted only 0.4% of PM2.5 emissions in 2011 while residential fireplaces emitted double that, and wildfires emitted ~1,000 times that amount.
17. There is no reference to Friends of Science review of two major climate change reports.
Proposed:
In the spring of 2015 the Ontario provincial government launched a climate change policy discussion site and policy paper. Friends of Science Society issued a rebuttal paper entitled: "Ideology or Evidence." [25]
In April of 2015 Friends of Science Society issued a report that challenged the premises of "Acting on Climate Change" - a report issued under the auspices of the McGill/Trottier Institute and which claimed to have the support of some 70 scholars across Canada. A central proposition of the report was that Canada could operate a national wind/hydro grid by 2035. Friends of Science report - "Reality vs. Climate Change Uncertainties" found this plan to be infeasible and noted a paucity of relevant power generation/engineers associated with "Acting on Climate Change". [26]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I hope you will consider some of these offerings. Thank you - feel free to ask any questions. Mbark2 Mbark2 ( talk) 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Friends of Science. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Friends of Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=fdc3b6fd-ca3e-454d-9894-f9894a0ef4ddWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Friends of Science is a volunteer-run organization based in Calgary, Alberta. It is interested in the discussion of Climate Change based on science. It's members freely agree with the concept of Climate Change. In fact the world's climate is very dynamic and it is always in a state of change. However, Friends of Science does challenge the concept that CO 2 is the bogeyman that is the main cause of the warming of our atmosphere.
Contrary to what is written above in the Wikipedia forum, Friends of Science is supported by individuals, most of whom are residents of Canada. It has an active paid membership of approximately 400 individuals. It's Financial Statements are posted to its website.
It's information may not be in agreement with the views held by majority of the public. However, the facts presented on the website are based on science. Contrary to general views held, many scientists strongly disagree with the the Summary Reports of the IPCC. 97 % of scientists will agree with the statement that our climate is changing. 97% of scientists do not agree that human activity and CO 2 are the main causes of Climate Change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.33.14 ( talk) 02:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Friends of Science:
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I have some trouble with the statement.
Of course, 3 decades of satellite data cannot show a "change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures", as three decades is to short for any long-term analysis. However, it can show a change in the temperature. It can show an increase in temperature (or a lack of the same). But what is a "no change in the rate of increase of temperature"? Are they claiming it getting warmer at a constant rate?
I suspect they want(ed) to claim that the satellite temperature record shows no increase in temperature (it does, but some early interpretations failed to show this, as they failed to account for orbital decay and other problems).
But given that parts of the statement are, read literally, nonsensical: Do we report what they say or what they try to say? -- Stephan Schulz 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, if you're interested in the prehistory of all this, the FoS current statement (which as Stephan says is nearly incomprehensible) didn't originally say that. They had: Temperatures have increased around built-up areas ("heat islands"), but satellite, balloon and long term mountain top observations have observed no increase at all. [1]. Of course it wasn't true in march 2005 - see the sat rec page (and wasn't true re the urban/rural stuff either - see the UHI page for refs) - and sometime after that they must have realised it was unsupportable and replaced it with something incoherent instead. Which is also insupportable, of course, but less obviously so William M. Connolley 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that this sums up the goals of the FoS? "Friends of Science aims to assist the Canadian Government in examining the science and data behind the Kyoto Protocol, and the Global Warming debate." Tynedanu 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You were right and I changed the goal to quote their web site, and added a link. Sorry about that, I'm just a newbie! Tynedanu 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the reference to the claim that "FoS has been criticised as an act of Astroturfing with close links to the oil industry". The reference leads to a blog, which does not seem to meet Wikipedia strict standards about such sources. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources :
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Now, Stephan Shultz, a known climate change believer, has removed this tag twice, the last time on the ground that "The blog article is the claim".
Now, if we are to allow such claims that circulate on blogs all over the internet, everything on Wikipedia will be criticized.
The Astroturf accusation sould be removed unless properly sourced. Please give feedbacks. -- Childhood's End 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, this article should be renamed "Criticism of Friends of Science", as it now contains more stuff about criticizing it than describing it. Or should we add information about the claims made by FoS so that it becomes a bit more relevant to spend as much space on one single statement that they made? -- Childhood's End 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I undid UbER's edit removing the large section of the Criticism section. I would like UbER or anyone else to please discuss and explain why this is Inappropriate Synthesis and then, when their point has been proven and a consensus reached, redo the edit. I will continue to undo the edit and keep the article in its current state if it is not discussed. JoeyETS 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I'm not inherently opposed to the section being removed, I just want to make sure it's not being removed because of bias. Bias from both sides of the Global Warming debate is ever-present in edits of this article, so I'm over-cautious. I see UbER's point, he's quite right, but I agree with Yilloslime that it should stay in until a proper source for scientific criticism. JoeyETS 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Three points in repsonse to Childhood's End: 1. An uncritical description of FoS or most any controversial group is inherently biased toward that group's POV. 2. The criticism under debate is not "invalid/fraudulent" as you describe. The issue is it's the criticism of a wikipedia editor, not an outside source. 3. Though the disputed material violates WP:SYN, I'd like to also point everyone's attention to WP:IAR which I would argue applies here. Of course, we could have our cake and eat it too, if someone would find a published criticism of FoS that says essentially what the OR says. Yilloslime 18:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I reinserted the claims made by FoS, with links to the articles that show they are false, but without any refutation in the text. I suppose that's the way the rules say we should do it, though it makes for a rather whack-a-mole approach to front groups like this, that reappear every few years under different names, making the same bogus claims. JQ 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I find that this article is not neutral. It's ridden with criticism. I agree with Childhoodsend, the article should be titled Criticisms of FoS in it's current form. I think that there should be a separate subheading for criticism, but please, let's try to keep the body of the article unbiased. Tynedanu 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Right now as it stands the article has nothing to do with the Friends of science and more to do with unsubstantiated criticism therof. Do you really think you would see an entry like this in a real encyclopedia? I doubt it. The section on funding is entirely irrelevant and outright slanderous. The evidence for some collusion with oil companies is non existent and links to some guys biased blog as some sort of evidence. The reality on funding is that FOS receives its donations from individual people and only once received money from Talisman to produce a video. http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2245155
In any event the funding for a non-profit group does not require disclosure by Canadian tax law so why is it discussed here? If they we're a charitable organization fine, but the whole section on funding should go or actually have some evidence of being funded by oil comanies.
Lets get real for a moment and just say what they are about and leave it at that. If you disagree with them or their statements vote accordingly or write a letter to the editor. ( Cam MacKay ( talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC))
Not only that,(although I whole heartedly agree with you Cam MacKay) but just who are the "critics" honestly a blanket "critics" of any organization is not allowed in any other business' or organization's Wiki page, why is it allowed here? As a matter of fact is a critic even able to be mentioned in any other organizations Wiki? (Outside of the global warming associated Wiki)Is Wikipedia in the business of being an objective encyclopedia or a nonobjective publication? It would seem in most cases it is indeed objective but when it comes to Organizations and Businesses associated with Global Warming issues, there is always a critics statement that is given equal space! -- 75.17.215.115 ( talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC) J. Scott
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO ( talk) 13:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Why the heavy-handed attempts to link this group to the oil and gas industry? It makes the article nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Some of the sources used are obviously biased and highly questionable. Worse, even if we accept their statements at face value, the entire organization's funding is a trifle (under $100K/annually), and its unclear if even a non-negligible percentage of that comes from energy firms. Innuendo implifying conflict of interest here seems highly farfetched.
Further, there's the issue of undue weight, when a brief article about an organization is overpowered by focusing on funding allegations. FellGleaming ( talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
-- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some effort to debate global warming within the lede of the article. While some measure of this is useful within the article itself, a simple statement of the groups's view is encyclopedic and useful here. FellGleaming ( talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
FOS say We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. [5] but this appears to be a porky [6]. Should we mention this? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The graph shown at right does not seem to be from the FoS website, and AFAICS does not represent any data on that site. Additionally, the trend lines placed on this image are misleading in nature as they span two distict epochs with differing rates of change. The image's own wiki entry containg links to two other images of temperature graphs, neither of which seem to agree with the generally accepted findings of HadCRUT, BEST, GISS etc that aggregate land and ocean surface temperatures have not significantly increased since 2001. This arises mainly because these graphs are out of date, showing data to only 2000 or 2005, and that five year averages have been applied which effectively shorten the series still further.
In summary, this image neither represents the opinions of the FoS site, nor does it represent the mainstream consensus of understanding of global temperatures, as of 2014.
I would suggest replacing this image with GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg
I also suggest that the other outdated and therefore misleading graphs be either updated, or deleted.
Owing to controversy flag I have not performed this edit, but leave it up to admins to decide. -- Anteaus ( talk) 07:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Hello, I am the Communications Manager of Friends of Science Society and new at Wikipedian-ing - so please bear with me if I make mistakes. I have already made a couple. I am identifying my position right off the top in light of the COI policy, and I have opened a new account as advised (that is not as 'corporate') and I will be writing/contributing to other articles of interest.
I appreciate that the Wiki policy is to edit controversial topics like climate change from the mainstream point of view. None-the-less, I hope you will review the codes of conduct/principles of two major science organizations which refer 'hard-nosed skepticism' as an essential part of scientific inquiry. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=1 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=24 http://archives.aaas.org/docs/1975-ScientificFreedomResponsibility.pdf
The present content on the Friends of Science Society wiki page is not reflective of the group's activities or purpose, or the level of scientific review. The point here is that Friends of Science is not a group of tin-foil hatted contrarians, but people of substantial scientific background. This is not reflected on the present page. I propose some material - rewrite at will.
Suggestions: 1. The present article states Friends of Science Society is a non-profit advocacy group.
Proposed (to this effect): Friends of Science Society is a non-profit society engaged in climate change literature review, research and commentary on climate and energy policies, and general education on the diverse factors affecting climate change. The group advocates for the impact of solar variability on climate change. This is contrary to the established mainstream scientific position on the subject and the generally accepted view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
(Note: Friends of Science Society does exactly the same kind of thing the IPCC does - no original research, but a review of peer-reviewed and academic literature)
2. The present article does not say that the founders and many members are actual scientists or working with physical science principles. By stating only that the group is an 'advocacy' group as presently stated, this makes it sound like a fringe or fake group with no relevant knowledge.
Proposed: The core board and founding members are earth and atmospheric scientists, solar physicists and engineers, as are many of the members. Friends of Science Society holds the position that ‘the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change’ and though humans have an impact, in their view it is nominal compared to that of natural forces.
3. The article lacks references to what the group does do.
Proposed: Friends of Science Society does not do original research. Rather, like the IPCC, the society does literature review, issuing commentaries and reports reflecting the group’s perspective. Most of these are published on their website, through PRWeb or Troy Media. Friends of Science Society also hosts expert guest speakers on various topics of climate science, climate policy or related economics. The events are video-taped and available for viewing online. ( http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=308)
Friends of Science also issues a quarterly newsletter, bi-weekly “Friends of Science Extracts” reviewing global news on climate policy and energy, and “Cli-Sci” a review of climate change science news and academic papers.
4.In the opening section of the present article, there is no reference to the early published debate between Pembina Institute and Friends of Science Society advisers and member which was published in the APEGA Journal "The Pegg" in Nov. 2002. This is relevant because Friends of Science made a scientific argument while Pembina Institute relied upon Kyoto. Friends of Science Society opposed Kyoto on grounds of scientific uncertainty, the scientific evidence that the Friends say supports the solar-impact view, and the potential economic burden.
Proposed (to follow from existing sentence): [EXISTING SENTENCE;The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year.[2][3]....]
In November 2002, a debate on the topic of Kyoto was published in The Pegg, the journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Arguing for Kyoto were two members of the Pembina Institute; arguing that the sun is the driver of climate change were Friends of Science Society’s scientific advisers Dr. Sallie Baliunas, and Dr. Tim Patterson along with Friends of Science member Allan MacRae, P. Eng.
5. Corrections - Sallie Baliunas is not a scientific adviser to Friends of Science; Douglas Leahy is not the President.
6. Lack of material related to valid, international research on the impact of solar variability on climate change.
Proposed:
Scientists Supporting Solar-Climate Link
Scientists in the field of solar physics whose work Friends of Science Society follows and reviews include: Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel), Henrik Svensmark (National Space Institute, Danish Technical University, Denmark http://www.space.dtu.dk/english/Research/Climate_and_Environment ), Willie Soon (United States), Khabibullov Abdussamatov (Astrophysicist and head of space research at the Pulkovo Observatory, Russia /info/en/?search=Khabibullo_Abdusamatov ), Silvia Duhau (Argentina), Ivanka Charvatova (Czech Rep.), Hans Jelbring (Sweden), Nils-Axel Mörner (Sweden), Nicola Scafetta (U.S.A.), Ilya Usoskin (Finland), to mention a few - in fact see the solar system as the main driver of climate change in terms of planetary orbital forces and variations in the rate and type of the sun's "solar wind". Some of these prominent scientists are forecasting imminent drastic cooling based on study of a thousand years of observed cyclical patterns of solar activity and their effect on earth’s climate.
According to several of these experts, the IPCC’s assessment of solar physics is extremely limited, and does not fairly represent the influence of solar variability (in its many forms) on Earth’s climate.
In fact the original mandate of the IPCC was to review and report on the human-causes of climate change. ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22 )
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.”
In 2013, the government of The Netherlands called for numerous changes to the IPCC to include natural factors and provide timely reporting. http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf
“The IPCC needs to adjust its principles. We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change. The Netherlands is also of the opinion that the word ‘comprehensive’ may have to be deleted, because producing comprehensive assessments becomes virtually impossible with the ever expanding body of knowledge and IPCC may be more relevant by producing more special reports on topics that are new and controversial.”
7. The present article repeats the story of the science fund and Barry Cooper's involvement at the U of C twice. There is a discrepancy in the dates (one is 2002 and the other is 2005). This is also 'news' from about 7 years ago, yet has page prominence as if this is the only relevant matter about Friends of Science.
Proposed - combine two sections of story under specific headline, delete repetitious content:
Science Research Fund Controversy
8. Dr. James Buckee is mentioned - but no reference is made to the fact that he is an Oxford-trained astrophysicist.
Proposed: Prior to reference to Talisman funding, include something like:
An early supporter and member of Friends of Science was Dr. Jim Buckee, an Oxford-trained astrophysicist. He was also CEO of Talisman Energy. [1]
9. You may wish to include the following facts: Dr. Buckee has also given lectures on how the sun drives climate at leading universities.
[2]
10. Recently Dr. Buckee supported the world's largest radio astronomy project at University of Western Australia, International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR). [3]
11. Early work included challenging the Naomi Oreskes "Consensus" essay:
Proposed:
Challenging Naomi Oreskes’ “Consensus” Essay of 2004
Friends of Science Society sent a letter to Naomi Oreskes challenging the claims of her much-cited ‘consensus essay published in Science Magazine. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full ) Subsequently, in 2006, Friends of Science commissioned Madhav Khandekar to prepare a bibliography of paper’s rebutting the alleged ‘consensus’ view which was sent to Oreskes’ but the group never received a response from her. ( http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=107 )
12. Under "Position" it would be relevant to inform audiences of some publications and references on the topic.
Proposed:
Position
Friends of Science Society’s position is that ‘the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.’ Though not a mainstream view, there is scientific research and evidence, along with numerous peer-reviewed papers that support this position (and researchers noted above). Publications include:
Club du Soleil – list of academic and peer-reviewed papers on the topic: http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
NASA’s publication of the work of solar climate science pioneer John (Jack) Eddy: The Sun, the Earth, and Near-Earth Space: A Guide to the Sun-Earth System - Comprehensive Information on the Effects of Space Weather on Human Life, Climate, Spacecraft http://www.amazon.ca/The-Earth-Near-Earth-Space-Comprehensive-ebook/dp/B00E4PZPUC
An interesting interview with Eddy can be read and heard on the American Institute for Physics site: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/22910
The Neglected Sun: How the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe Paperback – Sep 15 2013 by Fritz Vahrenholt (Author), Sebastian Luning (Author), Pierre Gosselin (Translator) http://www.amazon.ca/The-Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Catastrophe/dp/1909022241 Grand Phases On The Sun: The Case for a Mechanism Responsible for Extended Solar Minima and Maxima http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Phases-The-Sun-Responsible/dp/1466963018/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1396796812&sr=8-3&keywords=Yaskell
13. There is a limited review of Friends of Science activities. Some of them are quite relevant to issues of education, public access to qualified rational, dissenting scientific views on climate change.
Proposed:
In 2012, Friends of Science found that the Alberta Science Teacher’s Journal had published an article entitled “The Role of Educators in Increasing Public Certainty in Climate Change Science” by Stan Bissell
[4] that made derogatory marks about their organization, and that also suggested the media should not cover the climate change story in an equitable fashion.
This led Friends of Science researchers to further investigation of the Alberta School Curriculum that revealed a disturbing tendency toward indoctrination, including an exercise in the Grade Five Science Curriculum wherein children are asked to write down how they would argue the case if “your cousin doesn't believe we should be worried about climate change.” [5]
Friends of Science Society has issued various reports and commentaries on proposed climate policies over the years – these are posted on their home page.
Likewise, the group has featured guest speakers on topics of climate science, policy and energy economics over the past 13 years, the videos and power points for which are available on their website. [6]
In descending order the speakers included: Dr. Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist; Dr. Ross McKitrick, economist; Dr. Benny Peiser, climate policy critic; Donna Laframboice, author and investigative journalist; Dr. Ian Plimer, geologist; Dr. John Christy, atmospheric scientist; Dr. Timothy Ball, climatologist; Dr. Patrick Michaels, climatologist; Dr. Tim Patterson, geologist; Dr. Chris de Freitas, geologist; Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Dr. Timothy Ball, climatologist.
14. Challenging the ethics of climate science bullying - "NASA Faked the Moon Landing..." A critique
In 2013, two colleagues of Friends of Science published a critique of Stephan Lewandowsky's controversial paper "NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science" [7] The critique examined ethical aspects of name-calling and referred to Kipling D. Williams view that there is a 'social kiss of death' in ostracizing people. It is the view of the authors that the title of the Lewandowsky paper created a pejorative and popular internet 'meme' that indiscriminately smears any person questioning climate change - even highly qualified scientists. [8] Social psychology post-doc Jose Duarte claims that an analysis of the data reveals that Lewandowsky et al do not have valid data and writes:
"...What do the data say? Well, out of 1145 participants, only 10 believed the moon landing was a hoax (likely including fakes.) We'll pause here to note that 10 in this context is essentially zero, and we couldn't validly infer links between moon hoaxism and anything else from that number. But it's worse – a majority of these 10 reject the idea that climate science is a hoax – 7 out of the 10. Only 3 participants out of 1145 endorsed the moon hoax and the climate science hoax.
The title being wildly false is bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that it slanders millions of people as believing that the moon landing was a hoax. They don't believe any such thing, according to the authors' own data. Slandering one's participants is a serious ethical breach." [9]
15. There is limited content regarding the controversial billboard campaign which is relevant to Freedom of Speech and Scientific Inquiry.
Proposed:
Controversial Billboard Campaign 2014 and Ad Standards Complaints and Ruling
In January 2014, Friends of Science Society released a report [10] disputing the several consensus studies (Oreskes 2004, Doran & Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010, and Cook 2013). The report claimed the much-cited 97% figure was a ‘social proof’ and that a critical review of the consensus studies showed numerous discrepancies in methods, definitions and claims.
In conjunction with this, the group ran print ads in the Calgary Herald. Upon notice in the press [11] that the World Economic Forum (WEF) was planning a climate change meeting in Banff, Friends of Science ran a digital billboard at the Calgary Airport to welcome the WEF with the Friends of Science message that “The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2.” The story was picked up by European weblog Tallbloke Talkshop [12] but otherwise did not stir any media controversy.
In June 2014, the organization ran a larger billboard campaign during the Calgary Stampede. A series of digital billboards dotted the downtown core. One billboard stated that "the sun is the main driver of climate change." This provoked criticism from, among others, Greenpeace, whose request for their own advertisement to appear on an Alberta billboard had been denied by the same company that displayed Friends of Science's ad.[34]
A major controversy broke out in the media over this and a second billboard that showed the Remote Surface Sensing graph illustrating more than 16 years of no global warming trend (based on Remote Surface Sensing monitor data), and the statement “Global Warming Stopped Naturally 16+ Years Ago.” Numerous media covered the billboard story. [13] [14] [15] [16]
Jason Markusoff, a popular reporter for the Calgary Herald tweeted that finally Calgary made it to SLATE magazine – “for a laughably embarssing reasons.” [17]
In the June-July 014 edition of the Alberta Wilderness Association(AWA)journal, a short editorial condemned the Friends of Science billboard. Friends of Science requested a retraction and were denied the opportunity to rebut.Friends of Science protested in the press that this was not in keeping with the principles of a federally registered charity.
In November of 2014, Friends of Science Society began a low-budget, nation-wide digital billboard media campaign in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. This generated a tremendous public outcry in Quebec, numerous articles in the French-speaking press and resulting in some 96 complaints to the Ad Standards Council of Canada, most of which claimed the billboards (French translations of the English messages) violated the Advertising Standards Codes. One student group at UQAM (Universite du Quebec a Montreal) advocated using the Charter of Rights against Friends of Science. [18]
The campaign was panned by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation director John Bennett, in a blog posting that advocated for an email campaign against the media provider as well as Friends of Science Society. [19] The National Post’s Kelly McParland also wrote an op-ed condemning this blog. [20]
Friends of Science Society publicly criticized Sierra Club Canada Foundation for inciting cyber harassment against the media provider, saying this did not appear to be a charitable activity.
In the spring of 2015, after months of deliberation and a thorough review of submissions from complainants and Friends of Science Society, and an initial finding against the Friends of Science Society, the Ad Standards Council found against the organization based on specific sections of the Ad Standards Code - Clauses 1(b), (e) and 8, acknowledging though that “global warming and climate change are caused by the serious effects of the sun as well as carbon dioxide emissions”. [21]
Friends of Science noted in their on-line statement about the ruling that “Regarding the issue of scientific accuracy, it is unreasonable to expect that a billboard message of ~ 7 words could reflect the scope and nuances of climate science – a complex field.” Ad Standards Council is an industry advisory body; the ruling has no legal power.
16. There is no coverage of an important discussion on 'phase-out coal' in Alberta.
Proposed:
Countering the Alberta Phase-Out Coal Campaign
In 2013 the Pembina Institute issued “A Costly Diagnosis: Subsidizing Coal Power with Albertans’ Health” [22] - a report which stated that Albertans could save $300 million in health care costs and save about 100 people a year from premature death due to respiratory conditions, [23] which the report linked to emissions, primarily fine particulate matter (PM2.5 – smaller than 2.5 microns) from Alberta’s coal-fired power plants.
Friends of Science Society reviewed the evidence and issued a rebuttal report in January 2015 entitled “Burning Questions: An Evidence-based Review of the Alberta Phase-out Coal Campaign.” [24]
Friends of Science claims that Pembina Institute has exaggerated the risks of coal-fired power plants citing Environment Canada statistics that coal-fired power plants emitted only 0.4% of PM2.5 emissions in 2011 while residential fireplaces emitted double that, and wildfires emitted ~1,000 times that amount.
17. There is no reference to Friends of Science review of two major climate change reports.
Proposed:
In the spring of 2015 the Ontario provincial government launched a climate change policy discussion site and policy paper. Friends of Science Society issued a rebuttal paper entitled: "Ideology or Evidence." [25]
In April of 2015 Friends of Science Society issued a report that challenged the premises of "Acting on Climate Change" - a report issued under the auspices of the McGill/Trottier Institute and which claimed to have the support of some 70 scholars across Canada. A central proposition of the report was that Canada could operate a national wind/hydro grid by 2035. Friends of Science report - "Reality vs. Climate Change Uncertainties" found this plan to be infeasible and noted a paucity of relevant power generation/engineers associated with "Acting on Climate Change". [26]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
I hope you will consider some of these offerings. Thank you - feel free to ask any questions. Mbark2 Mbark2 ( talk) 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Friends of Science. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Friends of Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=fdc3b6fd-ca3e-454d-9894-f9894a0ef4ddWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Friends of Science is a volunteer-run organization based in Calgary, Alberta. It is interested in the discussion of Climate Change based on science. It's members freely agree with the concept of Climate Change. In fact the world's climate is very dynamic and it is always in a state of change. However, Friends of Science does challenge the concept that CO 2 is the bogeyman that is the main cause of the warming of our atmosphere.
Contrary to what is written above in the Wikipedia forum, Friends of Science is supported by individuals, most of whom are residents of Canada. It has an active paid membership of approximately 400 individuals. It's Financial Statements are posted to its website.
It's information may not be in agreement with the views held by majority of the public. However, the facts presented on the website are based on science. Contrary to general views held, many scientists strongly disagree with the the Summary Reports of the IPCC. 97 % of scientists will agree with the statement that our climate is changing. 97% of scientists do not agree that human activity and CO 2 are the main causes of Climate Change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.33.14 ( talk) 02:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)