the elites obsession with carbon dioxide is most definately IDEOLOGICALLY driven yes
the climate change scam
- Thread starter kinglear
- Start date
the elites obsession with carbon dioxide is most definately IDEOLOGICALLY driven yes
Climate change ‘consensus’ actually derived from the opinions of just 75 hand-picked U.S. scientists
Tuesday, December 13, 2016 by: JD Heyes
One of the most outrageously false of all the false claims is the one regularly spewed by Left-wing warming alarmists up to and including President Obama is that “97 percent of scientists” believe humans are causing the planet to warm, a figure which forms a genuine “concensus” of “settled science.”
The big problem with that claim is that it is based on incredibly skewed sampling.
As noted by The Last Great Stand website, the 97 percent consensus only makes sense to you if you also believe that nearly 100 million Americans out of about 320 million currently not in the work force really does produce an unemployment rate of just 4.7 percent.
Phony ‘consensus’
Author and frequent on-air political host and commentator Mark Steyn, in a recently published book, A Disgrace to the Profession, documented the fraud surrounding the so-called consensus figure:
Margaret R. K. Zimmerman, MS, conducted an opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change, the results of which were published by the University of Illinois in 2008. This was a two-question survey, and in fact was conducted online. It was sent to 10,258 earth scientists. Of that figure, only 3,146 responded.
Of the responding scientists, an overwhelming number – 96.2 percent – came from North America. Only 6.2 percent came from Canada, so the United States is dramatically over-sampled even within the North American sample.
Nine percent of U.S. respondents were from California, making California very over-represented within not just the U.S. sample, but elsewhere: That figure is twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined. Of the 10 percent of non-U.S. respondents, Canada comprised 62 percent, Steyn noted.
So the sample was very distorted, but apparently Zimmerman wasn’t satisfied yet, so researchers working with her further distorted it by selecting 79 of their sample and deeming them “experts.” Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from an added question, lowering the total number of scientists to 77; 75 of the 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 percent of them were found to agree with the “consensus” claim.
This is where the “97 percent of scientists” claim comes from. So in essence, a handful of scientists, mostly from Left-wing California, get to decide climate policy for the world’s 6.5 billion people.
In addition to this sham, the “researchers” also invited respondents to comment on the so-called “hockey stick” model, which purports to show a dramatic increase in global warming in a very short period of time (the Industrial Age, basically). That drew three comments: one blandly positive, and the other two – not so much.
Hoaxers have had to alter data in order to fool the masses
As scandalous as this is, however, it’s not the only way climate hoaxers have been manipulating the issue. As Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has reported, the data claiming to support the charge that our planet is warming has been repeated faked. He cited the web site Real Science, which noted in June 2014 that NASA began manipulating its climate data after the year 2000.
Prior to that year, the site reported, the space agency’s climate division had been showing the Earth in a perpetual cooling trend (even The New York Times reported on it, in February 1989):
Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period.
Right after 2000, NASA and NOAA changed data to make it appear much colder in the past and much warming in the present.
https://naturalnews.com/2016-12-13-...ns-of-just-75-hand-picked-u-s-scientists.html
''Replicating Oreskes’ original 2004 study, Dr. Benny Peiser found only 1 percent of published scientific papers explicitly endorse the “consensus view” that anthropogenic sources are responsible for global warming. And that was after Oreskes had used a deceptive selection process to winnow out thousands of studies. So, the false consensus was/is not 97 percent, but less than 1 percent! Likewise, John Cook’s study has been thoroughly eviscerated, revealing an AGW consensus of around 0.5 percent — one-half of a percent, not 97 percent. Obviously, Dr. Koonin’s proposal for a Red Team-Blue Team exercise, with an honest, open debate would threaten to expose this carefully constructed “overwhelming scientific consensus” lie that remains the biggest linchpin of the catastrophic AGW theory. That is why we are seeing such desperate efforts to derail it.''
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...and-fact-checking-will-expose-consensus-fraud
Dr. Benny Peiser’s Letter to “Science” and Its Rejection
By CFACT EU|May 4th, 2005|CFACT Europe|Comments Off on Dr. Benny Peiser’s Letter to “Science” and Its Rejection
Dr. Benny Peiser
Review Finds Robust Climate Debate Rather Than “Consensus.” Magazine Rejects Corrections. Read and Judge for Yourself.
1. Dr. Peiser’s Analysis of the Oreskes Study
e-letter to Science Magazine
sent: 4 January 2005
WebSubmission 56001
First Author Name: Benny J Peiser
Address: Faculty of Science
Henry Cotton Campus
Liverpool John Moores University
15-21 Webster Street
Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM
E-mail: b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
Phone: 0151 231 4338
Fax: 0151 231 4353
Type: Letter
Letter Details: 1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol. 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004
Abstract:
Letter Text:
On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.
Dr. Naomi Orestes
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change”. However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change” for the years 1993 – 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modelling is highly uncertain?
These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,” but on “global climate change” (3). Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK’s ISI databank the keyword search “global climate change” comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.
METHOD
I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords (“global climate change”) as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)’ details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):
1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position
2. evaluation of impacts
3. mitigation proposals
4. methods
5. paleoclimate analysis
6. rejection of the consensus position.
7. natural factors of global climate change
8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change
RESULTS
The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes’ findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’.
322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the ‘consensus view’ but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on “mitigation”.
67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the “the observed warming over the last 50 years”.
44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords “global climate change” but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
DISCUSSION:
According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, “either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view”. This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.
It also shows that many abstracts on “evaluation of impact” and “mitigation” do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the ‘consensus view’ but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.
Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).
In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the ‘consensus view’ is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists:
“The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time” (8)
This is not to deny that there is a majority of publications that, although they do not empirically test or confirm the view of anthropogenic climate change, go along with it by applying models based on its basic assumptions. Yet, it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a “scientific consensus on climate change”. The truth is, that there is no such thing!
In light of the data presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw Oreskes’ study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.
References
1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol. 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/com)
2. ISI Web of Science (http://www.webofscience.com/)
3. http://davidappell.com/archives/00000497.htm
4.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for “close ties between solar variations and surface climate”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: “The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies.” Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405
5) H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21:31-67.
6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise “the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change”. K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67
7) M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471
http://www.cfact.org/2005/05/04/dr-...ence-magazine-and-the-story-of-its-rejection/
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...and-fact-checking-will-expose-consensus-fraud
Dr. Benny Peiser’s Letter to “Science” and Its Rejection
By CFACT EU|May 4th, 2005|CFACT Europe|Comments Off on Dr. Benny Peiser’s Letter to “Science” and Its Rejection
Dr. Benny Peiser
Review Finds Robust Climate Debate Rather Than “Consensus.” Magazine Rejects Corrections. Read and Judge for Yourself.
1. Dr. Peiser’s Analysis of the Oreskes Study
e-letter to Science Magazine
sent: 4 January 2005
WebSubmission 56001
First Author Name: Benny J Peiser
Address: Faculty of Science
Henry Cotton Campus
Liverpool John Moores University
15-21 Webster Street
Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM
E-mail: b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk
Phone: 0151 231 4338
Fax: 0151 231 4353
Type: Letter
Letter Details: 1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol. 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004
Abstract:
Letter Text:
On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.
Dr. Naomi Orestes
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change”. However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change” for the years 1993 – 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modelling is highly uncertain?
These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,” but on “global climate change” (3). Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK’s ISI databank the keyword search “global climate change” comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.
METHOD
I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords (“global climate change”) as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)’ details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):
1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position
2. evaluation of impacts
3. mitigation proposals
4. methods
5. paleoclimate analysis
6. rejection of the consensus position.
7. natural factors of global climate change
8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change
RESULTS
The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes’ findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the ‘consensus view’.
322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the ‘consensus view’ but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on “mitigation”.
67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the “the observed warming over the last 50 years”.
44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords “global climate change” but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
DISCUSSION:
According to Oreskes, 75% of the 928 abstracts she analysed (i.e. 695) fell into these first three categories, “either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view”. This claim is incorrect on two counts: My analysis shows that only 424 abstracts (or less than a third of the full data set) fall into these three categories.
It also shows that many abstracts on “evaluation of impact” and “mitigation” do not discuss which drivers are key to global climate change, instead often focusing exclusively on the possible effects of elevated CO2 levels on plant growth and vegetation. Many do not include any implicit endorsement of the ‘consensus view’ but simply use certain assumptions as a basis for often hypothetical impact assessments or mitigation strategies.
Quite a number of papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (4). My analysis also shows that there are almost three times as many abstracts that are sceptical of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (5, 6, 7).
In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the ‘consensus view’ is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists:
“The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time” (8)
This is not to deny that there is a majority of publications that, although they do not empirically test or confirm the view of anthropogenic climate change, go along with it by applying models based on its basic assumptions. Yet, it is beyond doubt that a sound and unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world’s leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a “scientific consensus on climate change”. The truth is, that there is no such thing!
In light of the data presented above (evidence that can be easily verified), Science should withdraw Oreskes’ study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.
References
1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol. 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/com)
2. ISI Web of Science (http://www.webofscience.com/)
3. http://davidappell.com/archives/00000497.htm
4.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for “close ties between solar variations and surface climate”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: “The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies.” Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405
5) H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21:31-67.
6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise “the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change”. K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67
7) M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471
http://www.cfact.org/2005/05/04/dr-...ence-magazine-and-the-story-of-its-rejection/
the elites behind the technocracy aren't motivated by care for the planet
they are the very same people behind all the major polluting corporations as well as the fuel guzzling container ship globalism approach to trade
they just want to use it as an excuse to impose total control over you so that they can remove you from existence as part of their eugenics programme
maybe you should critique the elite created ideology of consumerism then?
but saying that the elites should be able to impose any controls they want on us as part of their technocracy in order to 'save the planet' is not going to fix the problem
all it does is hand complete power to the very same people who have messed the world up in the first place
Why Big Oil Conquered The World
How Big Oil Conquered the World
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Ah eugenics, of course
Skarekrow
~~DEVIL~~
- MBTI
- Ni-INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- Warlock
So let’s not try to use clean energy or try and keep our oceans from becoming acidic and full of plastic shit because climate change is a hoax and switching to greater technology will be the way we are all eventually enslaved?
Do I have that right?
Sounds totally logical.
Do I have that right?
Sounds totally logical.
Armandbasura
Two
- MBTI
- Infj
Very sad you have been brainwashed by the evil conservative elite, they have the means to protect themselves from global warming but people like you and me dont
the same people who were behind the eugenics movement since BEFORE the nazis are the same people who run the big oil corporations and the big banks and they are the same people who are now pushing all this climate change caused by carbon dioxide stuff, yes
if you watch james corbetts documentaries i posted above he details this
he'll tell you the who's the when's the how's the whys etc
i'm not saying we shouldn't stop polluting etc
I'm saying that the people doing all that polluting including plastics (created from the petrochemical industry) are the same people trying to tell us that the big problem we have is carbon dioxide
they are pushing this whole carbon dioxide is causing global warming con because they want to impose their technocracy
I'd love to stop the pollution but that's not what their agenda is
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
a-are they... immortal?
What are your thoughts on 9/11 and it's loose ties to the climate change scam? Connect some dots for me here.
some of them are pretty old for sure but they are dynastic families who have been following this agenda for generations
911 is more about creating the 'war on terror' which is then used to justify wars in oil rich countries. The same people pursuing control of the worlds oil fields as discussed in bzrezinksi's book 'the grand chessboard' are the same people behind the push for carbon taxes:
Christopher Bollyn Explains Who REALLY Did 9/11
U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
by Tyler Durden
Feb 3, 2017 5:57 PM
Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,
A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels.
Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history''
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism
by Tyler Durden
Feb 3, 2017 5:57 PM
Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,
A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels.
Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history''
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
What? The whole conspiracy theory is that Jews own the banks..... Why would they create an eugenics movement directed at themselves?
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
Actually, I have a question! 
What do you think global warming is?
What do you think global warming is?
Icedream
Nothing more than a thought
- MBTI
- INFJ
Alright, I don't care what you think about 9/11, but you're wrong if you think the war on terror is another red scare. Real people are shooting real people.some of them are pretty old for sure but they are dynastic families who have been following this agenda for generations
911 is more about creating the 'war on terror' which is then used to justify wars in oil rich countries. The same people pursuing control of the worlds oil fields as discussed in bzrezinksi's book 'the grand chessboard' are the same people behind the push for carbon taxes:
Christopher Bollyn Explains Who REALLY Did 9/11
Icedream
Nothing more than a thought
- MBTI
- INFJ
Yeah, why the jew hate? Give them a break
oh yeah people are shooting each other for sure and 911 was used as the justification for it