And it was just in time to hear the greenies and global warmists voices still shrieking outside the hedges. They had not stopped. I'll give this to the denizens of Hilary's Village, they do have strong lungs.
There they were chanting the mantra,
"Global Warming, Climate change, give us your money or
we'll hold our breath 'til we turn blue".
Apart from the first four words it was just like being back in Ned Kelly's day.
People lie about Ned Kelly. He is something of a cultural hero to some. He was a robber and a murderer. Not much different from a terrorist. He certainly terrorised early Oz people.
The entire Global Warming scam is highway robbery. It is aimed at the Taxpayer's wallet. It goes straight into the pockets of Politicians who can buy votes and buy sychophantic scientist with 'research grants' to further the hysteria and mendacity.
"97% of scientists are in agreement", the Greenies shout. I wonder sometimes what the 95% of scientists who know sod all about climate think. I don't agree with the greenies, but then I don't agree with some things said by customers in the Tavern either.
But what of just the 'climate' scientists? Alex Epstein wonders too. He broke the Islamic chatter with some observations about the weather as the rains started.
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree'
Is 100% WrongIf you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.
1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible.
What he means, but is too polite to say is, that they are LIARS. OK?The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry ( let's just stick to them. The Oz lists is huge) take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.
On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
Yes. He, El Presidente, the Messiarshole LIED. That's how you manipulate people. You LIE to them. OK?Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.
John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:"And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse."In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.But it gets even worse.
Because it turns out that 97%
That is to say, they LIED. OK?didn’t even say that.Which brings us to the next question:2. How do we know the 97% agree?To elaborate, how was that proven?Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case.
Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only .....
1.6 percent explicitly stated
.....that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then?
Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man.
He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it.
That is to say, he LIED. OK?In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”—Dr. Richard Tol“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”—Dr. Craig Idso“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”—Dr. Nir Shaviv“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”—Dr. Nicola ScafettaThink about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around.
It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.It’s time to revoke that license.
Alex is not alone in blowing the whistle. Dr. Terry Hughes has been putting his reputation on the line too. Andrew Desiderio of George Washington U was in to tell us.
RETIRED PROFESSOR TURNS WHISTLEBLOWER ON CLIMATE CHANGEWhile much of the debate over climate change surrounds whether or not it is occurring, one glaciologist and retired professor says the real issue is that the topic is being used as a political pawn to siphon money and votes.Dr. Terry Hughes, in an interview with The College Fix, said researchers want to keep federal funding for climate change alive, and politicians want to earn environmentalist votes, and both predict global pandemonium to that end.Hughes, a professor emeritus of earth sciences and climate change at the University of Maine, said for years his colleagues urged him to be in lockstep with former Vice President Al Gore – “the drum major in the parade denouncing global warming as an unmitigated disaster,” he told The College Fix.But Hughes – who believes global warming is actually a good thing because more carbon dioxide isgood for the environment in many ways – said he does not want to march to that beat.“Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want,” he said.
|The Greenie Guru turning Blue.|
So, the Prof agrees that the greenies, the politicians, the scientists and the media are LIARS.Prof. Hughes – who worked for 35 years at the Department of Earth Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine – said climate cycles overlap with election cycles, which helps politicians “get electoral visibility by pounding the panic drums.”But what he wants people to understand is that climate change researchers and politicians collude to create fear of a disaster that will never happen.“You will never read or hear any of this from the scientific and political establishments,” he said. “I’m now retired, so I have no scientific career to protect by spreading lies.”Among Hughes’ theories, he said he believes the desire to continue the climate change arguments has a “racist” component to it. His evidence? A 1974 National Security Study Memorandum written by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.“NSSM 200 states that American economic supremacy can be maintained only if U.S. foreign policy is aimed at reducing the non-white population worldwide,” he said. “We need their natural resources to maintain our standard of living.”Hughes said the U.S. has carried out that policy successfully by supporting the one-child policy in China, and also accuses the government of “targeting aborting baby girls using ultrasound technology that is rampant in both China and India, the two countries producing the most atmospheric carbon dioxide by far.”Hughes, who is now retired, does not fear backlash.Hughes told The College Fix that he has sent copies of his arguments to his former colleagues at the University of Maine and at NASA. Most of them “probably disagree,” he said, but added that they all receive funding for climate research.According to a retirement announcement from the University of Maine’s human resources department, “Dr. Hughes is an internationally renowned glaciologist who pioneered many of the modern ideas currently under study in the field. Not least of these is the current understanding of how massive ice sheets collapse and how important future collapse of portions of the Antarctic ice sheet will be to future sea level rise – a concept now commonly referred to as ‘the soft weak underbelly’ of Antarctica.”Ironically, the notice goes on to state that “many of his most ‘outlandish’ scientific contributions may not even be appreciated for years to come.”His reasons for why global warming is a good thing, Hughes told the Capital Journal, is that “atmospheric CO2 would greatly increase agricultural production,” “thawing permafrost would increase by one-seventh Earth’s landmass open to extensive human habitation,” and “if the sea level did rise, there would be a global economic boom,” among other arguments.
And we know who the Prince of Liars is, don't we.
Meanwhile the chanting goes on; the taxpayers get robbed. Money rains down on scam-artists. Many of them 'scientists'.
Funny how 'Science' (notice the big 'S') agrees that Truth is found by challenging the 'known' and always being skeptical of certainty. Not by polls.
Horseflies love cow-shit. Therefore we should eat it too. Can 100 million horseflies be wrong?
(Wrap up warm in winter)