THE “97%” Climate Consensus Lie Nailed

97_percent_busted.jpg

ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made global warming climate change”…

Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.

  • How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
  • 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
  • 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
  • If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate experts alarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?

Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.

•••

These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…

petition-warming-screenshot.jpg

31,487 Sigs (9,029 PHD’s) Global Warming Petition Project

The “97%” Hoax Related :

consensus-peer-review-climate.gif


WHY Greenpeace Despises Its Co-Founder – Patrick Moore PhD

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis
.”
– Greenpeace International

Rainbow warrior fossil fueling up.jpg

What … No Biofuel?

•••

Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” (Wikipedia)

A MUST SEE 5 mins by Patrick Moore PhD, on the “man-made climate change” scam…

•••

Dr Moore Related :


Hey @Algore ! Explain this! Bottom drops out of US hurricanes in past decade

WAITING for Australian press gallery to cross-examine Al “Hurricane” Gore on this very ‘Inconvenient’ climate data…

(crickets)

Watts Up With That?

Inconvenient data for those who still insist climate change is making hurricanes more frequent is displayed in these two slides from Dr. Philip Klotzbach. As noted by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. The bottom dropped out of US hurricanes over the last 10 years.

CommonDreams.org quoted Al Gore back in 2005:

… the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm – thus magnifying its destructive power – makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.

Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, “It’s impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic.” We had the first…

View original post 221 more words


10 REASONS Not To Believe The Climate Hype

weatherchanges.jpg

Paul Homewood of NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT recently posted a blog listing ten reasons countering climate “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe’s assertion that some of us don’t believe in global warming because we don’t care!

I don’t know a single person who doesn’t “care” about the planet or their environment. So, it would appear Katharine is using more of that divisive and marginalising language favoured by the totalitarian Left, in preference to facts and reason, in a deliberate effort to force you into a narrow set of beliefs that align with the alarmist orthodoxy.

By extension, these ten points lay out fundamental reasoning as to why increasingly, more and more climate truth-seekers are forming a sceptical view of the hayhoe-hysterical “climate change” debate.

And, they happen to make an excellent resource for your next friendly climate debate!

1) We don’t trust climate scientists.

The Climategate emails revealed just how untrustworthy the climate establishment has become.

We know that literally billions in grants are being shovelled their way, and that these grants would quickly dry up if they dropped their alarmism.

2) We don’t like being misled.

You, Katharine, have form in this respect, as you know.

It was you who claimed, in a magazine article in 2011, that increasing winter temperatures in Texas were a sign of climate change.

You came to this conclusion by starting your analysis in 1965, right at the start of a cold period.

You, of course, must have known that warming since then was just part of a cycle, and that temperatures have actually changed little since the 1920s.

Texa Winter Temps

Texas Winter Mean Temperatures

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/whats-katharine-hiding/

3) It was hotter in the 1930s

We are aware that temperatures across the US were considerable higher in the 1930s than in recent years.

Is it surprising that people are not in the least concerned about current climate?

4) It was warmer in the Middle Ages

Despite various attempts to disappear the MWP, evidence worldwide indicates that the climate was just as warm then as now, and that previous warm periods, such as the Roman and Minoan, were warmer still.

There is nothing unprecedented about current climate, so why should we be concerned?

5) The 19thC was the coldest period since the ice age

Ice cores show that the Little Ice Age was an exceptionally cold time. Why should we be surprised or concerned that there has been a small amount of warming since?

6) Cold kills

There can be no question at all that our current climate is beneficial compared with the cold of the Little Ice Age.

Or maybe you would prefer to return to that age of famine, cold, storms, floods and drought?

7) Extreme weather is not increasing

Despite climate scientists attempts to blame every bit of bad weather on climate change, there is no evidence that extreme weather is getting worse.

Droughts in the US, that were severe and widespread in the 1930s and 50s, have become much less of a problem since.

The US has now gone 11 years without a major hurricane, the longest such period on record.

The USGS can find no evidence that flooding has got worse.

And tornado activity has also diminished significantly since the cold years of the 1970s.

8) We don’t trust your data

Global temperature data has continually been adjusted to show more warming.

Yet the satellite data continues to diverge from surface data, and still shows temperatures have not increased since 1998.

9) Apocalypse never comes

For many years, we have been fed scare stories of apocalypse round the corner. These, of course, never materialise.

If climate scientists were to treat us with a bit of respect, honestly admitted that they have little idea of what is to come, and stopped trying to intimidate us with silly scares, you might find that we returned that respect.

10) Redistribution of wealth

Your attempts to treat us like children and trust the nice scientists ignore the issue.

Regardless of the science, the whole issue of climate change has been hijacked by politicians, the UN and a veritable army of vested interests.

People are not stupid, and know that developed countries have committed to transferring $100bn a year to developing ones, as part of the Paris Agreement.

Christina Figueres herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.

Full article: Ten Reasons Why We Don’t Believe You, Katharine | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

•••

Related :


Warmist Scientist Admits: Our Models Were Wrong

MORE on the shock, global warming “pause” paper from warmists Santer, Mann et al !

via PA Pundits…

 

UPDATE via Climatism:

 

MAKE NO MISTAKE. This paper is massive. It basically reaffirms what climate sceptics (“Deniers”) have been stating for years – that despite record CO2 emissions over the past 20 years, there has been NO statistically significant global warming over this period.

There is a catastrophic problem with the UN’s billion dollar CMIP5 climate models that essentially drive the $trillion global warming industry. They are grossly overheated, leading to the panic, hysteria and fake news seen daily on the topic.

Something other than CO2 must be driving the climate. And The Godfather’s of global warming doom and gloom – Ben Santer and Mikey (hockey stick) Mann et al have released this *scientific* paper supporting the sceptical notion of a lower CO2 sensitivity than perceived by the “97%”.

It is being touted in the sceptic community as “Black Monday” owing to the release day.

Surely, this paper spells the beginning of the end for the greatest and most costly scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.

PA Pundits - International

By Andrew Bolt ~

Even leading alarmist Ben Santer, lead author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, now admits the world isn’t warming as predicted by global warming models. Even Michael Mann, who produced the infamous hockey stick, has put his name to this paper.

From the abstract:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.

The problem is the models on which the global warming scare is based were simply wrong:

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

James Delingpole describes Santer’s colorful history in the climate wars since he was outed in the Climategate scandal.

Sceptical scientists identified this problem years ago:

John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data…

View original post 93 more words


Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

INCONVENIENT…

“[Since] the late 1970s. The vast majority of the globe’s vegetated area is greening, with 25-50% of that area showing a statistically significant change, while only 4% of the vegetated area is significantly browning…”

“Carbon Pollution” (aka Carbon Dioxide) not so “dirty” after all!

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels

It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol Browner was Bill Clinton’s EPA Administrator, but here we use it in the context of a recent Science paper by J-F. Busteri and 30 named coauthors assisted by 239 volunteers. It found, looking at global drylands (about 40% of land areas fall into this category), that we had undercounted global forest cover by a whopping “at least 9%”.

239 people were required to examine over 210,000 0.5 hectare (1.2 acre) sample plots in GoogleEarth, and classify the cover as open or forested. Thing of being condemned to looking at that many satellite views of real estate. Anyway, Here’s the resultant cool map:

clip_image002

This has been the subject of a jillion recent stories, blog posts, tweets and whatever concerning Bastin et al. So let’s add a bit…

View original post 299 more words


Good News! We Have Lots More Forest Than We Thought

SO, “Carbon Dioxide” is not the evil “pollutant” hysterically demonised by the climate cabal and even enshrined in law, as a “pollutant”, by Obama’s EPA!

The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, whether produced by humans or nature, is actually growing Earths forests! Shock news.

Another reason other than “carbon pollution (sic)” promoting forest growth, would be the advancements in energy technology, in particular the burning of efficient and energy dense ‘fossil fuels’…

When we’re burning fossil fuels, it means we’re not burning something else and cutting down forests.

The more we burn fossil fuels, the more we can produce fertiliser. That means we use less land to grow food, so we can spare land for forests. So there is net forest increase, particularly in America. New England used to be 70% farmland, it’s now 70% forest. Countries like Bangladesh are growing more forest.

The best example of this is the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haiti is almost 99% deforested, as they rely totally on wood for domestic and industrial fuel. On the other side, the forests of the fossil fuel burning, eco-terrorists – the Dominican Republic, remain lush and green…

IMG_9187

A new satellite that measures greening of the earth has found that about 20% is getting greener. So the rain forests and forests of the world are getting greener from burning CO2. That happens to be a very unwelcome message for the environmental movement, but it happens to be true.

We’ve spent so long demonising fossil fuels, without objectively assessing the enormous benefits they provide, both for the environment and for the health and wellbeing of society in general.
The cheap, reliable nature of fossil fuels even made it possible to end slavery! Because we use machines instead of people. You either have cheap labour or cheap energy.

Moral of the story, THE greatest threat to the environment is not affluence, it’s poverty…

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/shock-news-un-carbon-regime-would-devastate-humanity/

American Elephants

A new survey using high-definition satellite images has found 378 million additional hectares of forest around the globe—it’s as if all of Earth’s forests just grew by 9%.

(The hectare is an SI accepted metric system unit of area equal to 100 ares (10,000 m²) and primarily used in the measurement of land. An acre is about 0.4047 hectare and one hectare contains about 2.47 acres. I don’t do metric, and assume that some of you don’t either. You can also think of it as an area of forest equal to sixty percent of the size of Australia, if that helps)
“The forests have been identified in drylands in the Sahara desert, around the Mediterranean, southern Africa, central India, coastal Australia, western South America, north-east Brazil, northern Columbia and Venezuela and northern parts of Canada and Russia.”
*The image is of coastal Australia.

View original post