Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Climate Of 1923
- Market Volatility
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Expert Arctic Forecasting
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Nobel Prize Winning Forecast
- Changing Climate
- Gen Z Math And Solutions
- Orwellian NASA Maps
- Faking US Temperature Data
Recent Comments
- arn on Market Volatility
- arn on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Bill on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Market Volatility
- conrad ziefle on Hottest Summer Ever
- stewartpid on Market Volatility
- William on Record CO2 Growth
- Greg in NZ on Hottest Summer Ever
Alarmist Blogger Admits That The “97% Consensus” Is Bullshit
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Steve, I will explain in Chapter 2 of my autobiography that the root of mankind’s current misery is a 1945 decision to hide NEUTRON REPULSION [1] – the source of energy that causes cores of heavy atoms, some planets, stars and galaxies to violently fission and/or steadily emit neutrons that spontaneously decay to hydrogen (H) atoms.
Rather than accept reality of the power that made our elements and then sustained the origin and evolution of life, the scientific revolution that Copernicus started in 1543, very quietly ended in 1945.
1. Oliver K. Manuel, “Neutron repulsion,” The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012): http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf
Post 1990 vintage climate scientists were not admitted into their doctorate programs unless they already agreed with the Chicken Little science. So a poll of these is virtually worthless. Poll older climate scientists and the number is going to be much different. Better yet, poll meteorologists, and we find 50% or more don’t buy the warmist baloney.
Put the acronym “C” in front of AGW, and a lot more then 50% reject the thesis.
Also, while an American Meteorological Society poll found that 52 percent of meteorologists believe global warming is happening and is mostly human-caused, and 48 percent do not, the survey also found that meteorologists with professed liberal political views were far more likely to believe global warming is human-caused than the others. So, if we exclude those with extreme liberal views, then the numbers will change dramatically against the leftist agw tripe.
Please do not forget to place the “C” whenever you type CAGW, as the C is the basis of the desired political power. Thanks in advance
I’d like to read his latest survey. In previous survey’s he’s done the “consensus” position seems to be somewhere in the 60-80% range.
Funny how no one ever takes a poll of what scientists think about the atomic weight of beryllium.
I can only assume this is because they belong to a less branch of science where scientific opinions are not respected. Sad.
lesser*
I prefer my science to have a strong consensus, or I won’t have any science atall.
As a HARD physical scientist (no nonsense), I want the objective truth, which is independent of subjective measures like “consensus”. Only definitive evidence, not ANYONE’S–nor any group’s–beliefs, matters.
Science is not a popularity contest.
But grant awarding is.
It is not hard to achieve consensus when your means of support (Government grants) is at stake. No one is going to pay you to study a problem that you do not believe exists.
Andy DC –
I would rather phrase it “No one is going to pay you to study a problem that THEY do not believe exists”.
And, because it’s gummint money we’re talking about, the real truth is ‘No one is going to pay you to study a problem that THEY do not believe CAN BE EXPLOITED FOR POLITICAL GAIN”.
There, now that’s fixed.
Too many letters.. . . . “Alarmist Blogger Admits that the 97% Consensus is Bullshit.”
Should be “Alarmist Blogger is 97% Bullshit.”
There, much better.
If a consensus of scientist came to a collective decision that some theory proved a condition but did no work to materially prove it. Would it still be true? If these scientists also allowed the education and politics of the nation be shaped by this decision, would it be moral?
If later an unknown and unregarded man, working at menial job, and not a scientific specialist, mused on these theories, then finally discovers what is wrong with them and thus finds a genuine truth. Could he possibly be right? Should the collective let him speak?
Days were different in Einstein’s time?
How much longer will global warming have to be over before the government stops granting money to these losers and they can get jobs selling used cars? Do we have to wait until the next ice age?
How much longer can they keep lying before SOMEBODY in the government does what Abbot down in Oz did and just tell them to shut the hell up?
and they can get jobs selling used cars
Given that none of them would be capable of selling used cars (or doing anything useful, for that matter), my guess is that the answer is “quite a long while yet.”
And Abbot hasn’t got it all his own way yet — he still has to battle daily against a rabid public broadcaster that is totally out of control, and a virulently left-wing “progressive” media that are jointly conducting a relentless anti-democratic jihad against a government which they quite openly hate.
Given the tenacity of entrenched belief systems, it may require a 3-mile layer of ice to finally smother this thing.
if von Storch only got a score in the 80’s with a bent field like “climate science”, that’s encouraging. Maybe the skeptics are finally coming out of the closet.