“Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.”
BUT wait, there’s more! …
“So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future…”
ERGO, no! There is no “weather or climate shift [that could] cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule.”
HOT, cold, wet, dry, snow, drought, flood, heatwave, blizzard – it’s ALL “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” and it’s ALL your fault!
Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.
It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real
Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017
This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.
Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.
View original post 817 more words
These are the facts:
* Sea level has remained virtually at the present level over the last 200 years
* In the last 50-70 years sea level has remained perfectly stable in Fiji
* This stability is indicated by the growth of corals (stopped to grow vertically, and forced to grow laterally into microatolls) – and corals do not lie
“Whatever economy, politics and project agendas may want to put in the center, the true scientific community must insist that only facts as revealed in nature itself and in laboratory experiments can provide trustworthy results.”
Nils-Axel Mörner signs off his open letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23 Frank Bainimarama with this slap of reality that goes to the heart of the UN’s pseudoscientific “climate change” agenda to fulfil its (self-proclaimed) wealth-redistribution goals…
“Retournons à la Nature
That is setting field evidence in the center instead of models and ideas driven by political and/or religious agendas.”
Open Letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23 Frank Bainimarama by Nils-Axel Mörner
The community assembled at the COP23 meeting in Bonn badly wants temperature to rise according to models proposed (but never verified, rather seriously contradicted) and sea level changes that may pose serious flooding threats to low lying coasts provided sea level would suddenly start to rise at rates never recorded before (which would violate physical laws as well as accumulated scientific knowledge over centuries).
We have been in your lovely country and undertaken a detailed sea level analysis, which beyond doubts indicates that sea level is not at all in a rising mode, but has remained perfectly stable over the last 50-70 years. Hence all threats of an approaching general sea level flooding is totally unfounded.
Whatever economy, politics and project agendas may want to put in the center, the true scientific community must…
View original post 803 more words
Via Warwick Huges | Errors in IPCC climate science :
In 2012 I blogged To understand Perth sea-levels is a complex issue – much of the Perth plain has subsided in recent decades…
Recent media publicity around a “State of Australian Cities” reporthas beaten up claims that Perth sea-levels are rising at three times the global average, or near 10mm per year. A matter that Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese described as “disturbing and extraordinary”. Chris Gillham shows that the claims in the State of Australian Cities report re Perth sea level rise are over-hyped.
This chart fom a 2010 WA Govt planning report shows long term sea level changes at Fremantle.
The State of Australian Cities report concentrates on shorter term more sensational trends in the last 20 years but omits to quote recent research measuring rapid subsidence of large areas of the Perth coastal plain.
A 2012 paper – Anthropogenic land subsidence in the Perth Basin: challenges for its retrospective geodetic detection – says subsidence at Gnangara for the 14 years 1997-2011 has averaged 4.6mm per year – see Table 1 below.
In recent decades subsidence has been worsened by increased drawdown ground water for Perth water supplies – a process which has eased post 2005.
This online chart shows CGPS readings from the Hillarys tide gauge installation and indicates steady sinking of ~3mm per year 2006-2012. There are no CGPS readings I can find from Fremantle.
Hillarys has CGPS data from 1997 and Featherstone et al say those data – “…are not in a form that can be readily analysed in a short time frame, particularly because of the multiple equipment changes that make the time series very discontinuous.” Other published versions of the Hillarys CGPS data quote a 1998-2009 subsidence averaging just over 5mm per year. Watson PJ – Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level
Rise around Mainland Australia?
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2011
Featherstone et al 2012 discuss surveying to detect level changes and say – “There is some scope for detecting subsidence in the Perth Basin if levelling is repeated now or sometime in the future. However, the costs are likely to be prohibitive.”
I fail to see how a few repeat levelling traverses from the Darling Ranges to the coast costing what ? – a few $million ? – should be beyond the wealth of a First World nation like Australia. Apparently some traverses were carried out in the 1980’s.
There is no shortage of Govt grant monies to waste on shonky Greenhouse inspired “research”.
Tide gauges and harbours are often located in places where the crust is sinking due to say sedimentation from a river. Any harbour structure attached to piles will slowly sink into the muddy substrate over the decades – factors like traffic vibration, a century of ships banging into piles – all can contribute to piles sinking. Dock areas where tide gauges tend to be installed are often the sites of reclaimed land, Auckland is an example. This tends to quietly settle for decades which can confound tide gauge data. At Fremantle 150 years of urbanization – including storm-water drainage direct to the sea – can lower ground water levels and cause subsidence – quite apart from deliberate ground water harvesting.
See also :
THE top 21 most powerful U.S. landfall hurricanes of all time (ex Irma#7 Harvey#18) all struck before Armageddon Al’s first science fiction movie was released!
THE one which featured a hurricane as the selling point.
THAT’s one helluva’ “Inconvenient Truth” 🌪
Thoughts and prayers to all in Irma’s path and to those still recovering from Harvey.
While this won’t be of much comfort for those that are squarely in it’s path right now, it is a small bit of good news. Dr. Philip Klotzbach has compiled rankings of both hurricane Irma and Harvey when they made landfall. Compared to the 1935 Labor Day storm, Irma is a distant 7th, tied with the 1928 Lake Okeechobee storm.
With Irma ranked 7th, and Harvey ranked 18th, it’s going to be tough for climate alarmists to try connecting these two storms to being driven by CO2/global warming. But they’ll do it anyway.
HANNAM couldn’t even wait for Harvey and the flooding to subside, for residents to find dry land, before slapping them around as the “self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”” – brutishly and falsely linking the fossil fuel industry to extreme weather events.
MEMO to Peter : There is NO evidence that the use of fossil fuels has had any effect on “extreme weather”. In fact, even the alarmist UN IPCC begrudgingly admitted in their last climate report (AR5) a level of “low confidence” that human greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on extreme weather events.
IN the IPCC’s own words from their SREX report : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme”.
FURTHERMORE, Hurricane Harvey that made landfall in Texas as a category four, ended America’s record 4,324 day major hurricane drought.
BUT, climate facts like these don’t seem to sit well for the alarmist ‘journalists’ over at Fairfax…the one’s that still remain!
HOW developed were the Texan oil fields 117 years ago, Peter?
Sydney Morning Herald alarmist Peter Hannan stoops to a new low as floods hit Houston.
He treats weather as climate.
He ignores evidence that cyclones have actually got fewer over the past decades.
And he then blames the victims:
Yes, Houston, you do have a problem, and – as insensitive as it seems to bring it up just now – some of it is your own making…
Houston is facing worsening historic flooding in the coming days as Tropical Storm Harvey dumps rain on the city, swelling rivers to record levels.
But, as the self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”, there’s a connection between rising global greenhouse gas levels and the extreme weather now being inflicted that some of your residents have understood for decades and had a hand in.
To see how deceitful this is, note these conclusions from the latest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Note also that the IPCC is alarmist, prone to exaggeration, yet is forced to admit:
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale…
In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust… In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low… Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered…
Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century…
Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature… Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases.
So there have actually been fewer cyclones or tropical storms like Harvey and little evidence of more floods. Yet Hannan seizes on one of the floods to regularly batter the US gulf coast and insists it’s caused by global warming.
What a snake oil salesman.
One of the world’s top climate scientists, Dr Roy Spencer, explains what Hannan won’t – that this cyclone was not the worst, the floods are not the highest, the deaths are not the greatest and the cause is not man-made:
The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur…
Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.
There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet… By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.
Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?
Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.
Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don’t want all of the rain to land on them.
There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.
Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 3 9 a.m. this Monday morning is just over 30 39.7 inches, with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston.
Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity?
In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.
Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.
And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.
So what makes this event unprecedented?
The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.
If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual…
Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.
But Peter Hannan, paid alarmist, says yes, yes, yes.
Harvey Related :
- Hurricane Harvey: Devastating – Not Unprecedented | Climatism
- It’s over – 4324 day major hurricane drought ends as Harvey makes landfall at Cat 4 | Watts Up With That?
- JUDITH CURRY – “Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.” |Climate Etc.
- 15 Feet Of Sea Level Rise In Ten Minutes | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
Extreme Weather Related :
- EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
- OPEN Letter To The Bureau Of Meteorology – Tropical Cyclone Trends | Climatism
Failing Fairfax Media Related :
ANOTHER must read Paul Driessen masterpiece.
Worth an intro with a few notable comments from posting at WUWT…
“I have to agree, an excellent article. Too bad it won’t get to those who need to read it. Too bad they wouldn’t read it even if it were available to them.” (Rhoda R on August 13, 2017 at 10:21 am)
“Our cargo cult’s easy access to…everything
Notice there’s only two types worried about global warming…
The ones that get paid..
…and the ones in affluent societies that have the leisure time to think about it
Global warming it a product of affluent societies” (Latitude on August 13, 2017 at 10:36 am)
“The belief that Gorebal Warming is an existential threat, requiring urgent action is the product of a dumbed-down education system.
The belief that fossil fuels and nuclear power can be replaced by “renewable energy” is the product of a “participation trophy” society.
The belief that the world can painlessly transition away from fossil fuels is the product of an affluent society.
It’s a combination of STEM ignorance, a sense of entitlement and affluence.” (David Middleton on August 13, 2017 at 10:57 am)
“Why don’t they advertise a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?” (Curious George on August 13, 2017 at 1:10 pm)
Foreword via Anthony Watts @ WUWT:
The drumbeat for a fossil-fuel-free energy utopia continues. But few have pondered how we will supposedly generate 25 billion megawatts of total current global electricity demand using just renewable energy: wind turbines, for instance. For starters, we’re talking about some 830 million gigantic 500-foot-tall turbines – requiring a land area of some 12.5 billion acres. That’s more than twice the size of North America, all the way through Central America.
But where it really gets interesting is what life would actually be like in a totally renewable electricity world. Think back to Colonial Williamsburg – the good old days. The way they really were. Not the make-believe, idyllic version of history they teach in school these days. Read on, to take a journey to the nirvana of the “stabilized climate” future.
Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia
Life without oil, natural gas and coal would most likely be nasty, brutish, and short
Al Gore’s new movie, a New York Times article on the final Obama Era “manmade climate disaster” report, and a piece saying wrathful people 12 years from now will hang hundreds of “climate deniers” are a tiny sample of Climate Hysteria and Anti-Trump Resistance rising to a crescendo. If we don’t end our evil fossil-fuel-burning lifestyles and go 100% renewable Right Now, we are doomed, they rail.
Maybe it’s our educational system, our cargo cult’s easy access to food and technology far from farms, mines, and factories, or the end-of-days propaganda constantly pounded into our heads. Whatever the reason, far too many people have a pitiful grasp of reality: natural climate fluctuations throughout Earth history; the intricate, often fragile sources of things we take for granted; and what life would really be like in the utopian fossil-fuel-free future they dream of. Let’s take a short journey into that idyllic realm.
Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. (That’s not total energy consumption, and it doesn’t include what we’d need to charge a billion electric vehicles.) We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-MW turbines!
Spacing them at just 15 acres per turbine would require 12.5 billion acres! That’s twice the land area of North America! All those whirling blades would virtually exterminate raptors, other birds, and bats. Rodent and insect populations would soar. Add in transmission lines, solar panels, and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.
The renewable future assumes these “eco-friendly alternatives” would provide reliable, affordable energy 24/7/365, even during windless, sunless weeks and cold, dry growing seasons. They never will, of course. That means we will have electricity and fuels when nature cooperates, instead of when we need it.
With backup power plants gone, constantly on-and-off electricity will make it impossible to operate assembly lines, use the internet, do an MRI or surgery, enjoy favorite TV shows, or even cook dinner. Refrigerators and freezers would conk out for hours or days at a time. Medicines and foods would spoil.
Petrochemical feed stocks would be gone – so we wouldn’t have paints, plastics, synthetic fibers, or pharmaceuticals, except what can be obtained at great expense from weather-dependent biodiesel. Kiss your cotton-polyester-lycra leggings and yoga pants good-bye.
But of course all that is really not likely to happen. It would actually be far worse.
First of all, there wouldn’t even be any wind turbines or solar panels. Without fossil fuels – or far more nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which rabid environmentalists also despise – we couldn’t mine the needed ores, process and smelt them, build and operate foundries, factories, refineries, or cement kilns, or manufacture and assemble turbines and panels. We couldn’t even make machinery to put in factories.
Wind turbines, solar panels, and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization.
My grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.” Well, they’d be back, as the USA is de-carbonized, de-industrialized, and de-developed.
Ponder America and Europe before coal fueled the modern industrial age. Recall what we were able to do back then, what lives were like, how long people lived. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, or similar places in your state. Explore rural Africa and India.
Imagine living that way, every day: pulling water from wells, working the fields with your hoe and ox-pulled plow, spinning cotton thread and weaving on looms, relying on whatever metal tools your local blacksmith shop can produce. When the sun goes down, your lives will largely shut down.
Think back to amazing construction projects of ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome – or even 18th century London, Paris, or New York. Ponder how they were built, how many people it took, how they obtained and moved the raw materials. Imagine being part of those wondrous enterprises, from sunup to sundown.
The good news is that there will be millions of new jobs. The bad news is that they’d involve mostly backbreaking labor with picks and shovels, for a buck an hour. Low-skill, low-productivity jobs just don’t pay all that well. Maybe to create even more jobs, the government will issue spoons, instead of shovels.
That will be your life, not reading, watching TV and YouTube, or playing video games. Heck, there won’t even be any televisions or cell phones. Drugs and alcohol will be much harder to come by, too. (No more opioid crisis.) Water wheels and wind mills will be back in fashion. All-natural power, not all the time.
There’ll be no paved streets – unless armies of low-skill workers pound rocks into gravel, mine and grind limestone, shale, bauxite, and sand for cement, and make charcoal for lime kilns. Homes will revert to what can be built with preindustrial technologies, with no central heat and definitely no AC.
Ah, but you folks promoting the idyllic renewable energy future will still be the ruling elites. You’ll get to live better than the rest of us, enjoy lives of reading and leisure, telling us commoners how we must live. Don’t bet on it. Don’t even bet on having the stamina to read after a long day with your shovel or spoon.
As society and especially big urban areas collapse into chaos, it will be survival of the fittest. And that group likely won’t include too many Handgun Control and Gun Free Zone devotees.
But at least your climate will be stable and serene – or so you suppose. You won’t have any more extreme weather events. Sea levels will stay right where they are today: 400 feet higher than when a warming planet melted the last mile-thick glaciers that covered half the Northern Hemisphere 12,000 years ago.
At least it will be stable and serene until those solar, cosmic ray, ocean currents, and other pesky, powerful natural forces decide to mess around with Planet Earth again.
Of course, many countries won’t be as stupid as the self-righteous utopian nations. They will still use fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric, and watch while you roll backward toward the “good old days.” Those that don’t swoop in to conquer and plunder may even send us food, clothing, and monetary aid (most of which will end up with ruling elites and their families, friends, cronies, and private armies).
So how about this as a better option?
Stop obsessing over “dangerous manmade climate change.” Focus on what really threatens our planet and its people: North Korea, Iran, Islamist terrorism – and rampant poverty, disease, malnutrition, and early death among the billions who still do not have access to electricity and the living standards it brings.
Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate, when they really end up controlling our lives.
Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.
CLIMATE CHANGE sense and reason via Paul Driessen :
- DRIESSEN : Climate Crisis, Inc. | Climatism
- Climate fear is being used to take away human freedom and empower governments | Climatism
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | Climatism
- Global Warming Insanity On Steroids! | Climatism
- Continued Hype and Deceit Drive Climate, Energy Agenda – Clobbering Poor Families | Climatism
MUST read Driessen :
MORE excellent Driessen :
- Risking Lives to Promote Climate Change Hype | Climatism
- DRIESSEN: Climate alarmism’s 10,000 commandments | Climatism
- Greedy Africans are starving our cars | Climatism
- Carbon Dioxide: The Gas of Life – Paul Driessen
- Stop Denying Climate Science and ACT! (Before People Realize it’s a Scam) – Paul Driessen
- Real Climate Science the IPCC Doesn’t Want You to See – Paul Driessen
- Keeping The Poor Impoverished | Climatism
- Confusion, Muddle, Obfuscation And Racism | Climatism
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