It is true that the earth’s climate is changing, but, that’s nothing new. It’s gotten warmer and cooler every century since fish grew legs and lungs and strolled up onto land to start the longest party on record. As recently as the end of the 19th Century, we emerged from what climatologists describe as “a mini-ice age.”
Bu … is current global warming man-made? Is it is settled science? It sure seems to be, because the media trumpets that “97 percent of scientists agree.”
Really? Who are these 97 percent? This statistic has been cited by Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and 100 million terrified Americans — but where does it come from?
Crest toothpaste claims four out of five dentists recommend Crest, but do they? Have you ever asked your dentist?
Who conducted the research? Who paid for it? Has market research ever been skewed?
(Click to view)
One early attempt to document a wide-spread consensus on global warming was cited by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. The author of the paper, Naomi Oreskes, claimed that 75 percent of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed agreed with the “consensus” proposition that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, who’d become concerned about the how the “we’re-all-gonna-die” claims related to global warming were negatively affecting his patients’ actual physical health.
Dr. Schulte decided to use his medical research background to recreate and update Oreskes paper. After the completion of the project, Dr Schulte wrote: “There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians — and is now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.”
I kept digging, and soon found what’s considered to be the ground zero of the 97 percent consensus: A “research” papers by a fellow named John Cook, who runs the website SkepticalScience.com. I can save you a little time if you’d like — Mr. Cook’s belief in man-made global warming and the coming apocalypse makes Al Gore’s views look as boring as, well, Al Gore. And Mr. Gore is the one who’s made a billion dollars off the belief.
The project, which has been downloaded over 1.3 million times, was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the website.”
FYI, you did not read that previous sentence incorrectly. It really says, “citizen scientists.” Cook also described his volunteers as “climate experts,” not scientists. In case you’re wondering, Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Kerry have all been officially cited as Climate Change experts.
The “team of experts” consisted of 12 Cook disciples — man-made climate change activists. These volunteers, many of whom had no formal training in the scientific research, stated they “reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers, published over the 21 years – from 1991 to 2011 – to assess the size of the “consensus view” on climate change.
“Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent of (the climate change papers) endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause,” the summary of his paper stated.
Except oops … not so much.
Cook was able to pull that stat out of his warming hole by dreaming up two categories he labeled as endorsing a view they did not. These categories were dubbed a) explicit endorsement without quantification, and b) implicit endorsement. In other words, Cook’s claim about both what the papers said – and what percent of scientists agreed with him – was a) horse, and b) shit. In the wake of his a) horse and b) shit, a number of the researchers he’d reviewed stepped forward:
Dr. Richard Tol: “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
Dr. Craig Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
Dr. Nir Shaviv: “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
Dr. Nicola Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument.”
To further bury the Cook (et al.) scam, David Legates, a University of Delaware professor of Climate Research attempted to re-create Cook’s study … and found that “only 1.0 percent of the papers expressing an opinion and agreed what Cook claimed.”
Is it possible there are others who disagree? Can’t be, right?
Well, the revered “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is actually nothing more than additional a) horse, and b) shit.
Why? Because many of the “scientists” lacked any scientific qualifications in the area of physics, climatology, or paleo-climatology, which is generally deemed important when declaring oneself a scientist who understands the climate. In addition, many more of those in the UN “consensus scientists” enjoyed direct or indirect financial benefits from the results of a Man-Made finding.
Oh, and the Associated Press reported that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “summary for policymakers.” For those slow on the uptake, that means lunatics are running the asylum.
(Click to view)
Another clear indicator the Climate Crisis leaders are not in the least bit concerned about man-made CO2 is their endorsement of “emissions trading” – which they are pushing to make national and international law. This concept is hilariously easy to understand: Earth-loving Al Gore owns an 850,000-acre butterfly farm … a place so sustainable and crunchy that it receives a Carbon Rating of +10,000 per year. It doesn’t matter that there’s a total of six butterflies in residence and the land is in fact wild … what matters is it’s a corporation with the proper Butterfly Farm filings and certifications, and legal participation trophies.
Evil Prioleau Alexander owns a trucking company, and those trucks emit diesel fumes, which results in a carbon rating of -1,000 each year … and he must pay for the sin of actually adding value to society.
How does he do that?
He calls up Al Gore, and says, “Gee, Al. I see you own a butterfly farm with a Carbon Rating rating of +10,000. I need to buy some of those points because the new laws say I’ve got to get my score up to zero by year-end … so I’m going to wire you money I made by working, while you did nothing but sit on some fake farm land and collect government subsidies for being a green business.”
Al, of course, is pleased with the transfer of wealth, and agrees … chuckling that he still has +9,000 more points to sell.
What Al keeps on the downlow is that this “trading” system obviously doesn’t reduce carbon emissions by a gnat’s breath … it simply transfers wealth to the butterfly farmers, and solar panel companies, and windmill farms — you know, the inside friends of Al (et al.) who were told back in the day to get in on the scam early.
Dr Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist, explains that much of the current hysteria is based on the fact that — in the past decade — “scientists outside climate physics have jumped on the bandwagon, publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war.” (Those are real papers).
Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer, who’s published over 200 peer-reviewed papers, has stated on the record that computer model predications have never worked, and never will. The atmosphere, he explains is too complex, and the alarmist models are using dumb-downed equations with adjustable inputs… and they know it.
(Click to view)
As an example, he points to the tracking of hurricanes. Even with real time data and global resources in action, hurricane predictions past two days are a guess, at best. This is due to the volatile nature liquids, in both the atmosphere and ocean, thus making accurate predictions impossible. Which, as Southerners know, is why us natives laugh at tracking models until the hurricane is 24-hours away.
When I began my quest to track down the reality of the “97 percent consensus” and its sources, I thought it would be hard … I assumed those scientists rejecting the man-made consensus would be buried beneath pages of Google slight of hand.
Nope. The information is so widespread from so many sources, even Google can’t bury it.
And yet global warming alarmists cling to it …
That, I believe, is a big difference between the world-view of the Right and the Left. If Donald Trump had claimed that 97 percent of all poll watchers and computer experts agreed the election was stolen, conservatives would’ve said, “gonna need to look into that.”
After an hour of research and reading, the conclusion would be obvious: Either this ridiculous (and hypothetical) claim would’ve been traced to one lunatic research paper, or disproven entirely. The claim of 97 percent would become something to laugh about.
Right now, there are left-wing readers of FITSNews.com finishing this piece, and “literally shaking.” They won’t spend a day researching the opposition data and challenging what they’ve heard. They won’t think, “is it even remotely possible the number I’ve been quoting is exaggerated?” Nope, they’ll hold their breath until they faint, and awaken refreshed and convinced anew.
That’s the problem in America today: We the people — and that includes those on the Right — have not yet come to grips with the level of contempt with which our ruling elites view us and manipulate us. They view us as meat puppets, and laugh as we dance to the puppet stings they pull.
There is an old saying that says, “figures don’t lie, but liars do the figuring.”
America would be much better off if everyone figured out how truth that saying really is.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Prioleau Alexander is a freelance writer, focusing mostly on politics and non-fiction humor. He is the author of two books: ‘You Want Fries With That?’ and ‘Dispatches Along the Way.’ Both are available on Amazon. He hopes to have another title published soon, but that would require his agent actually doing his job, so it may be awhile. Oh, and if you want to see his preferred bio pic? Click here …
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy here at FITSNews! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
Might I suggest you ask your provider for a script for Zofran which would help stop your endless vomiting of pointless and doltish drivel.
Question the claims of the Climate Cult™? Hell, we still have folks clinging to their masks! Even PT Barnum would be impressed.
The Venn diagram of global warming deniers and anti-vaccine dolts is just a circle, isn’t it?
Science bad! Science bad!
When they all start addressing the mass produced waste form mindless consumerism then I might listen. Look at the landfills, look at all the plastics manufactured, used and discarded that never go away. Google the plastic waste island in the Pacific that is roughly the size of Texas. When they come up with viable ways to reduce and recycle all the garbage then we might get somewhere. So as of yet there is no money to be made from recycling, reducing use and conserving resources. That is the bottom line……making money.
Wait–where’s your photo of you and your emotional support gun? Beyond that, let’s talk common sense. Remember when we used to have four seasons in SC? Now it’s virtually an endless summer with about 3 weeks of cold temps. And to get all analytical on you, why don’t you spend an afternoon compiling average temperatures for the major cities in SC over say, the last 20-years. That should keep you occupied for a while, off the streets, and hopefully, you’ll learn a little something along the way instead of endlessly repeating your right-wingnut talking points.
The idea of carbon credits and all that nonsense is just capitalism figuring out a scam to simultaneously not solve the issue of global warming (because it isn’t profitable) and make a buck off gullible people (which is profitable). Prioleau perfectly described why capitalism is the problem here, so, kudos?
But yes, it bears repeating. Capitalism will not fix global warming because it is not profitable to do so. Global warming is just one example of a market failure, admittedly a big one, in a long, long list of market failures.
The state will not fix global warming because it serves capital. When capital tells it to jump, rest assured it will jump within 1 nanometer how high capital has told it to jump.
The best capitalism will do is, well, scam the ever living hell out of people any way it can. Most of what the state will do is half measures that won’t disturb the profit-seeking ventures of capital. Those two positions see eye to eye far more often than most would like to admit. I think it is pretty obvious to tell that Republicans stand for the “do nothing” side while Democrats stand for the “do effectively nothing” side. You should probably still vote, but do so knowing the house always wins.
The other reality is that there is a huge amount of restructuring of society required to avoid the worst of global warming, and it requires a great deal of cooperation, effort, and ingenuity focused at doing it. Everyone’s lives would drastically change by necessity, and people would just have to accept that. But you’re expecting politicians – even the so-called honest ones – who spend most of their time in Congress drumming up money for their next election to take time out of their day to work? Hard? On an important issue?
Not to sound pessimistic but as a leftist, there’s really only one way this gets better.
I just wish there could be some sort of grand, large-scale “Counsel of Nicea” type of event for comprehensive academic debate on this, with both sides being required put up fully credentialled scientists in the specific relevant fields (and not every Tom , Dick , and Harry who want to jump on one bandwagon or another to get $$$ from their chosen sponsor) to fully respond to each other’s requests for data, both filtered and unfiltered, and each others questions and criticisms, with full time for proper rebuttal. Print the whole thing into a giant compendium for the future generations to analyze. Decide whether or not there is in fact substantial human causation, that it can in fact be stopped or reversed under real, quantitative remedial measures that are worth the time, money, and sacrifice. I’ve been a skeptic of this mostly for the reason that I can’t find anything that explains to me how the present terms are materially different from the hundreds of thousands of years (even millions) of both regional and global warming and cooling that occurred without the slightest trace of human industrial activity. I need to see something that shows me why what may or may not be currently going on is not mostly the result of vulcanism or solar cycles. I’m skeptical, but not at a point of firm belief or conviction by a long shot. I can be convinced one way or the other if I just knew that both sides had a full opportunity to be heard and responded to.
There is no debate.
Man made climate change is already causing mass destruction.
That just from internal studies done by oil companies over the years.
The credible, global scientific community has already agreed on man-made climate change decades ago.
You are confused because you get your information from politicians, not scientists.
your tinfoil hat is cattywampus just like your warped pea brain. there is cliimate change its called spring summer fall winter. fixed it for ya
….and that’s exactly what I’m talking about….rather than engage in the debate, and WIN it, we are told “there is no debate, stupid, now shut up and go away.” That’s the kind of stuff people say who can’t really defend their positions when they are put on the spot. There has been debate, for decades- but it has been peicemeal; soundbyte and cinema from the respective camps. I say “welcome to thunderdome” and let have it out – academically – for all to see.
“rather than engage in the debate, and WIN it”
Do you really think a climate denier will just change their mind when being presented with evidence? Do you think they’ll admit they were mistaken or something?
You realize we are in a political climate where people double and triple down on bad takes whenever they are challenged because they’ve assumed said takes as their identity, and thus challenging them on their bad take is attacking their identity?
You don’t get it. You can’t debate with “Nuh uh!” You leave them to their sandbox and their toys and go back to working on stuff that matters. Scientists furthering the knowledge of mankind is useful. Scientists trying to convince laymen that refuse to listen is a fool’s venture.
The peer review process already exists. Climate data and the theory of climate change in general is in a constant state of being challenged at the scientific level by anyone competent that is participating in it. There is no threshold for any scientific theory to become immutable law, if anything the theories that are accepted are only accepted under the existing knowledge base, and will forever be open to change the moment new information suggests that it should be.
This isn’t football. There is no Super Bowl every year for every scientific theory to prove itself for laymen in some kind of arena. There really shouldn’t be. NASA should not have to waste time debating flat Earthers. There is zero equivalence between the two in regards to scientific understanding. To put them on the same table together is to grant ignorance an unwarranted level of legitimacy.
If Fox News could create a climate study lab and show verifiable results from experiments showing how CO2 can’t be driving global warming, they probably would have already. That goes for right wing think tanks, any billionaires wanting to dip into their pockets, some rogue band of scientists that aren’t “woke” or whatever else. Lord knows the oil companies would have done this by now too, they’ve known since at least the 70s about global warming. From their own studies.
the sky is falling the sky is falling , blah blah blah its all a grift. , nobodys buyin this swill. trump will change it all back