Fire And Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
– Robert Frost

Climate Change is the rage! We must control the climate or we all will die!

If you look at the literature, the claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause. We are supposedly over 50% responsible for this predicted – catastrophic change.

Our global warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the past several years. Not to worry, every time there’s a hot spell somewhere, a flood, tornado, hurricane or other weather phenomena, the “Warm-ists” insist, humans are the cause of these disasters. Even further claims, drought, and wild fires, are also caused by our human emissions of CO2. Oh, and cow farts. Cows emit methane and they’re contributing to this problem, therefore, according to some, we must eliminate meat. Vegetarians have been telling us for years, they have the superior diet.


Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

scientists-97-percent-memeIt turns out that 97% 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, 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. 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 Scafetta

Think 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.

Now what? If we challenge their public pronouncements from yonder scientific endowed throne, we are labeled, climate deniers. “Why don’t I like climate deniers? It is NOT because they don’t understand the climate sciences; it is because they don’t WANT to understand the climate sciences.” ~ Gerald Kutney-Ph.D. Chm.- politics of climate change pundit & author.

So, there you have it. Case closed, you’re not supposed to have any other thoughts or explanations because we’re smarter and know stuff.

Maybe I should start with removing some assumptions that lead the arguments, but do nothing to get at the truth.

Any topic deemed so sacred that it can’t be questioned, needs further examination. This control from authority or power must be questioned or it wouldn’t need this level of authority to suppress.

No one that seriously is interested in climadeception begins with grants of moneyte science, or those who read the information, deny that climate is changing, and that it will continue to change.

There are two fundamental questions we should be asking among many more peripheral dilemmas.

1 – Is the data fundamentally correct? That’s to say, climate change is headed in a direction of planetary concern? Are the computer models we’re using accurate enough to make such predictions?

The United Nations IPCC publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval of the published review of which they are supposedly authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially useful energy.

2- If humans are the catalyst to create global climate warming, then what can we do that’s truly going to affect a positive outcome?

Howard Bloom became interested in science, especially cosmology and microbiology, as early as the age of ten. By age sixteen Bloom was working as an assistant researching the immune system at the Roswell Park Memorial Research Cancer Institute. Bloom graduated from New York University and, at the age of twenty-five, veered from his scientific studies to work as an editor for a rock magazine. Bloom would go on to found one of the largest public relations firms in the music industry.

Some groups claim humanity is plunging headlong towards catastrophe and possibly even a future in which a tiny band of survivors cluster around the last remaining habitable territory near the poles.

Other groups claim that climate change will not be too bad so there is no need to stop using fossil fuels. They point to beneficial effects such as ‘global greening’ in which plant growth is boosted by the extra carbon in the air.

Norway is banning cars from it’s capital.