New Video : The Fake News 97% Consensus

12 Responses to New Video : The Fake News 97% Consensus

1. oeman50 says:

   May 13, 2017 at 8:27 pm

   I like the Michael Crichton references. But I would add just one more thing to start the debunking. I was never taught that consensus was part of the scientific method, quite the opposite. It is a political process not a scientific one!

   Reply
2. AndyG55 says:

   May 13, 2017 at 8:48 pm

   Another goodun’. :-)

   I was arguing once with a college, he pulled the “97% consensus ” then the “precautionary principle” out..

   Both times I informed he that he had now lost any scientific credibility in the argument.

   He was not amused…. but being a person of rational mind, he actually conceded my point.

   Reply
   • AndyG55 says:

     May 13, 2017 at 8:52 pm

     ps.. he has been reading more and more on the subject from varying sources, and is pretty much “asking questions” about the so-called science behind AGW.

     He is turning to the realist side…

     … just like anyone who actually starts questioning, must do. :-)

     Reply
3. Cam says:

   May 13, 2017 at 9:42 pm

   You should really put in something about where Obama got his 97% stat, which is primarily from 3 bad studies that created bad statistics. The 97% consensus meme has become the equivalent of dropping the word Nazi into the mix when you can’t win an argument with the facts. The left is very adept at using this technique.

   http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24484

   Reply
4. Jim Steele says:

   May 13, 2017 at 11:09 pm

   Good advice!

   Reply
5. Steve Case says:

   May 14, 2017 at 3:52 am

   If you do a Google search on:

   [methane times more potent powerful]

   You will find:

   methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide
   “Methane — a potent greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide
   methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as
   methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas.
   Methane has a GWP of 21, which means it’s 21 times more effective at …
   methane, when released into the atmosphere, is 86 to 105 times as powerful as …
   “Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
   methane is up to 100 times more powerful a greenhouse gas …
   Blah…blah…blah…blah…blah…

   The truth of the matter is that methane is in the atmosphere at less than 1900 ppb with an annual increase of about 6 or 7 ppb, and in 100 years that will result in a temperature rise of less than 0.1°C.

   Less than a tenth of a degree in 100 years isn’t very scary hence the bombastic propaganda.

   Reply
   • Steve Case says:

     May 14, 2017 at 3:58 am

     Hmmm I screwed up my lead in which was to say that the 97% of scientists crap isn’t the only bullshit that the other side is spewing in a daily basis, and that no one on this side of things is trying to knock it down.

     Reply
6. Billyjack says:

   May 14, 2017 at 1:00 pm

   Actually, the 97% consensus trotted out continuously by the Church of Warming exposes the fraud of their argument. The ability of getting a 97% agreement on any scientific hypothesis is virtually impossible. I doubt I could get a 97% consensus from Evangelicals on the virgin birth.

   Reply
7. JPinBalt says:

   May 14, 2017 at 2:28 pm

   What about mentioning the real repeatedly debunked true source of the 97% stat falsehood?
   I.e. John Cook (2013) [PhD in psychology] at the Global Change Institute in Queensland OZ.
   http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

   http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
   http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

   Getting colder in OZ where the paper came from, UAH has Southern Hemisphere land pegged at a negative -0.16 C anomaly (4/17) since satellites when up in 1978 (but of course that is statistically insignificant)
   http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
   so guess cook the abstracts Cook (the climate crook) had to move to warmer areas like Center For Climate Change Communication at GMU in VA in Northern Hemisphere closer to the hot air where they were burning the green money.
   https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/cooks-consensus.jpg

   Reply
8. GoFigure says:

   May 17, 2017 at 8:42 pm

   You might also point out that the IPCC (and its cohorts) claim (in writing) that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming. However, in the early “survey” which claimed 97%, the “surveyors” didn’t ask for anything resembling the IPCC claim. It was basically a meaningless question, asking whether or not human activity had ANYTHING to do with the global warming.

   Almost ANY skeptic might feel it was prudent to respond “yes” to that query.The entire issue is about how MUCH impact human activity may have contributed.

   None of these “surveys” were done by professional surveyors. The early one sent out 10,000+ queries to respondents, and received about 3,000 responses. They THEN filtered their list down to 77 (or thereabouts), only 2 of which were classified (by them) as “skeptics”.

   Another “survey” took a different tack, using an automated key word search of published climate documents, and on that basis categorized the author(2) as either part of their consensus or skeptics. Unfortunately, during the early days, not many articles were being accepted from skeptics for publication, (ClimateGate demonstrated the ongoing game preventing skeptics from getting published) and this was further exacerbated by skeptical authors subsequently discovering out they had been counted as part of the consensus !

   There’s only one reason alarmists devote so much time to votes (which don’t count for much in science anyway). They have nothing else to justify their claim.

   Reply
   • GoFigure says:

     May 17, 2017 at 8:43 pm

     author(2) should have been author(s)

     Reply
9. Iggy P. Krebsbach says:

   May 17, 2017 at 10:43 pm

   See also this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lngHJmdDx-w

   from a series called CO2 on Trial

   Reply