HOME | DD

Orcsattack [2022-07-16 06:55:42 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

OnlyTheGhosts [2018-12-14 06:49:22 +0000 UTC]

No, humanity is done with being told bullshit by a lying alarmist gang who keep promoting pseudo-science backed by their political influence for political ends.

Recall that 97% of climate scientists claim? How many times has it been trotted out to be debunked, again, and again, and again?

Doran and Zimmerman in 2009, published in 'EOS' claiming that "97%" of climate scientists agreed that global temperatures have risen since the 1800s, and that humans are a contributing factor. The problems with this paper are numerous, and again it's been debunked thoroughly. Apart from the vague generality of the survey question and the responses being misrepresented, the survey itself wasn't scientifically valid. The survey asked the wrong questions, was silent on whether or not the human impact was large enough to constitute a problem, and the conclusions misrepresented the result of the response. The survey question was sent to tens of thousands of climate scientists, of which only 3,146 responded; Doran and Zimmerman then cherrypicked 79 of the 3,146, claiming that because 77 of those 79 agreed with the statement, that it represented 97% agreement. That's like having an election but only allowing those voters who already agree with you to be able to take part. Dodgy, very dodgy stuff.

2010, William R. Love Anderegg (then a student at Stanford University) used Google Scholar to cherrypick just 200 scientists for their views on climate change. 'Anderegg et al' published in the 'Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences' again using the "97%" claim. There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be, and cherrypicking only 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends claimed to have reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011, publishing his findings in 'Environmental Research Letters'. Funny how that 97 magic number keeps popping up, but yet again, Cook claimed that "97%" of those papers explicitly (or implicitly) suggest that human activity is responsible for 'some' warming. Cook's paper was rapidly debunked as well, and extremely thoroughly. David R Legates (former director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research) along with 3 co-authors reviewed the same papers as Cook did. Legates and his co-authors found that only 0.3% (not the 97% that Cook had claimed) endorsed the AGW alarmist view that human activity was causing most of the global warming. Furthermore, many other climate scientists later came forward to protest that Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

The IPCC claims to speak for 2,500 scientists, but only lists 41 authors and editors for relevant chapter of their 5th Report. What of the other experts? What of their views? Some of the scientists listed by the IPCC as supporting their report's conclusions came out publicly and contradicted the IPCC, protesting even that they were misrepresented. The IPCC has engaged in such crooked misrepresentations of scientists views before; they did so with their 4th report as well.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose or disagree with the alleged "consensus".

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF ) (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF ) (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF ) (August 2013)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)

These days the majority of people can also verify a lot more news and science for themselves. There are many sources for comparison. We can think. We are not limited to a few newspapers, a few TV networks, which are all owned by only a very few rich people whose interests are best served by pandering to the same agenda as the political authorities which they helped to get elected. We have choices now that we didn't have before. People have learned that almost everything which they were taught in the western nations is filled with propaganda, distortions about history, and continued lies in the corporate media. We no longer are limited to information fed to us through the eye of a needle selected only by self-proclaimed "authorities" that have lied to us throughout all of our lives, we can check and learn and think for ourselves.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Robby-Robert [2018-12-06 02:43:03 +0000 UTC]

That is exactly what the free marketeers say!
Robert.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1