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
expertsalarmists 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…
The “97%” Hoax Related :
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- IPCC Insider Says That The 97% Consensus Actually Consists Of “A Few Dozen” | Climatism
- 97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming | Climatism
- 97% Of Climate “Experts” Promised You The Arctic Would Be Ice-Free By 2014 | Climatism
- The Cook ‘97% consensus’ paper, exposed by new book for the fraud that it really is | Watts Up With That?
- Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims | Forbes
- Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review
- TOP READ: The 99.99% pure climate consensus – how to ignore thousands of skeptical scientists « JoNova
Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate DataPosted: July 7, 2017
THE emperor really has no clothes!
Earlier this week we learned Michael Mann and his fraudulent Hockey Stick have been slapped down in a Canadian court. Mann was ordered to produce the data on which his fake claim was based (as good science demands). He refused the request and Contempt of Court charges will follow!
Add EPA Pruitt’s “red team” to the mix and the house of climate cards is looking like a dangerous place to reside!
Don’t expect the Goebbels Media to utter a peep about any of this.
Cartoon by Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com
Guest essay by Michael Bastasch
A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.
Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming…
View original post 719 more words
Surprise, surprise again…
“Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.”
by Chris White
A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.
Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.
“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.
He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.
“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in…
View original post 244 more words
“NOAA’s decision to withhold the documents was, he wrote, ‘without any justification in law’.
Last week Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK Met Office, admitted that notwithstanding the Pausebuster, it was clear ‘the slowdown hasn’t gone away’. The ‘pause’ is clearly visible in the Met Office’s ‘HadCRUT 4’ climate dataset, calculated independently of NOAA.”
Climate “science” finally being submitted to the proper scrutiny it deserves under the new administration.
TOM KARL et al – Time to handover the publics data, that you refused to under subpoena, when Obama ran your corrupt climate show!
Time “science” got its once good reputation back so we can make properly informed decisions with the publics money. The many trillions of their money spent so lavishly on “Climate Crisis Inc.”
It should be harder for NOAA to brush this off than it was when the last President was in office.
Revelations by the Mail on Sunday about how world leaders were misled over global warming by the main source of climate data have triggered a probe by the US Congress.
Republican Lamar Smith, who chairs the influential House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, announced the inquiry last week in a letter to Benjamin Friedman, acting chief of the organisation at the heart of the MoS disclosures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
He renewed demands, first made in 2015, for all internal NOAA documents and communications between staff behind a controversial scientific paper, which made a huge impact on the Paris Agreement on climate change of that year, signed by figures including David Cameron and Barack Obama.
View original post 407 more words
“(NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”
In 1960, Eisenhower foresaw the possibility of a criminal like Tom Karl of NOAA corrupting science….
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
– President Eisenhower 1960
Australia’s warmist agency BoM (Bureau of meteorology) removed the very warm temps of the late 1800’s and begins Australia’s temp record at 1910. This correlates with warm Cape Town (Southern Hemisphere) temp data, pre-1909, removed by NASA to maximise upward trend in temps, promoting the “man-made” global warming narrative.
BoM also smoothed out (removed) 1940-1970’s cooling in many regions of AUS, as seen in the Cape Town record, to create an overall warming trend.
“Man-Made” global warming, by pen and *not* CO2, indeed.
Playing around with my hometown data, I was horrified when I found what NASA had done to it. Even producing GISTEMP Ver 2 was counterfactual.
Guest essay by Philip Lloyd
The raw data that is fed to NASA in order to develop the global temperature series is subjected to “homogenization” to ensure that it does not suffer from such things as the changes in the method of measuring the mean temperature, or changes in readings because of changes in location. However, while the process is supposed to be supported by metadata – i.e. the homogenizers are supposed to provide the basis for any modification of the raw data.
For example, the raw data for my home city, Cape Town, goes back to 1880:
The warmest years were in the 1930’s, as they were in many other parts of the globe. There was then a fairly steep decline into the…
View original post 191 more words
NOAA TORNADO LIES: Another solid example of why government climate agencies like NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, BoM, MetOffice – run by a handful of activist administrators, are the last places to hear or read the truth on “global warming” aka “climate change”.
“The bottom line is that the NOAA headline graph is grossly dishonest. Indeed, if a company published something like that in their Annual Accounts, they would probably end up in jail!
NOAA themselves know all of this full well.
Which raises the question – why are they perpetuating this fraud?”
Read all of the excellent deconstruction of yet more NOAA fraud via Paul Homewood here…
By Paul Homewood
According to NOAA, the number of tornadoes has been steadily growing since the 1950s, despite a drop in numbers in the last five years.
They show the above chart prominently in their Tornadoes – Annual 2016 Report.
However, they know full well that it is meaningless to compare current data with the past, as they explain themselves in the section Historical Records and Trends, which is hidden away on their own website:
One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidence of a tornado must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are short-lived and very unpredictable. If a tornado occurs in a place with few or no people, it is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not make it into the historical record since Tornado Alley was…
View original post 592 more words