In the Washington State Senate on February 7, 2017.
Here is the full presentation.
What’s funny is when a warmer claims 97% and you show them how that was derived they simply claim that their ‘facts’ are right and your data is wrong…
You still don’t get it:)
Even when the warmer brothers lie they are still 97% right.As they not just have the high moral ground.These super supremacist Masterrace of Herrenrassenmenschen have alsothe only prerogative of interpretation on planet earth.
They can define and redefine reality whenever and whereever.
That”s what they did when they proclaimed global coolingand that’s what they did when they changed global cooling for global warming(and rebranded it to “climate change” for better PR).
They still do this with success:when they all of a sudden declare the leader of a country in the orient for the new hitler(new hitler=i can bomb the shit out of you and give weapons to terrorist)
As bankers can create money out of thin airthose guys can create realities out of thin air-
and some people claim that both groups are the same.
It is very true, 97% of those paid to say there is global warming will say there is global warming. The other 3% either get a pink slip or locked away in a corner.
Tony, but we don’t agree with the 97% of climate fraudsters. And, remember, it was you that pointed out there is no 97%!
I stated my case very clearly and exactly as intended. I’m not sure who “we” are.
Just because 97% agree on anything does not prove something is correct. It only “proves” that 97% are purported to agree.
I would define “we” as honest Americans that DO NOT believe the 97% consensus statistic that is tossed around the MSM, its a bold face lie! “We” don’t put one once of trust in that phony George Mason study! Mason has made a killing on climate science programs – what are they teaching?
Climate ChangeIs 97% Bullshit
Here’s my page on the 97% scam, in particular the Zimmerman and Cook surveys.
The key to the Cook one is that only a handful of papers actually state that humans are responsible for most of global warming (which in itself does not necessarily mean that it is dangerous)
Cook and Richardson ( a co-author) blatantly misinterpreted their findings to suggest that this was what the 97% agreed with.
As Roy Spencer has pointed out, hardly any scientist would disagree with the fact that humans have some effect on climate, even if only UHI
“hardly any scientist would disagree with the fact that humans have some effect on climate,”
And humans certainly have a HUGE effect on the NCDC/NOAA “global average temperature” ;-)
Here is Senator Ted Cruz going up against the 97% statistic vs the “pause” with the President of the Sierra Club. It is truly unbelievable:
Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change
Here are a couple more good videos deconstructing the 97%:
The WA State Senator . . ‘this is several dozen peer reviewed papers by hundreds of scientists that are directly contrary to your entire testimony . .’
Another rebuttal to that Tony might be, ‘And, I can show you hundreds of peer reviewed papers by hundreds/thousands of scientists, which cast a contrary view to your personally held views of man-made climate change.’
cheers . .
Golden! I loved when that nutter with the banner stood up. People are insane.
Suppose 97% having science degrees are Global Warming Millerites. Then if the 31000+ who signed the Petition Project are the only scientists unconvinced, simple algebra shows that Millerites with at least a BS would have to number 5x the combined memberships of the APS and American Chemical Society to add up to the mythical 97%. If we plug in the number of IPCC signers who are Global Warming Millerites as God’s Punishment of Mankind, add Gavin and Schmidt to make an even 20 as the 97%, the 3% thought-criminals add up to less than one single scientist. Their junior high arithmetic fails utterly, so what am I to surmise about their curve-fitting calculus?
You have some serious gonads atop a really big brain.
he is a machine.
The French Mathematical Society has evidently found out about RealClimateScience: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08.pdfAbout time someone liberated France from the accursed Econazis!
Nice find and comment Hank!
From the conclusion…
In terms of basic methodology, the work of the IPCC is entirely flawed, since it ignores the natural variations in the quantities it seeks to analyze: temperature, precipitation, CO2 concentration, etc. The IPCC is arguing that the earth is naturally in a permanent and stable state, that only human activities would disrupt.
In terms of data acquisition, the work of the IPCC is also flawed, since it chooses in principle the data, or datasets, that support its theses, eliminating all the others, which are simply ignored.
The work of the IPCC is very ideologically oriented; it does not obey any of the fundamental rules of scientific research (rules which are recalled below), and could in no way be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.