Total Pageviews

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Fake Consensus Survey Summary

The claims of a 
“scientific consensus”
about global warming 
are a myth.

When you hear 
the "97%" myth,
that false number 
will be based on
a biased "survey",
or abstract-counting
exercise, that starts 
with a "97%"conclusion, 
and then does anything
required to support 
that number.

Honesty and fairness 
are not principles
that guide leftist surveys!

A group of Canadian retired Earth 
and atmospheric scientists, called 
themselves "Friends of Science".

They produced 
a 2014 report 
that reviewed 
four popular 
climate change 
surveys and abstract
-counting exercises 
that I will summarize 
in the next four articles.

Friends of Science claim
honest conclusions, based
on all the data received,
without selective editing,
would have been:

(A)
Oreskes actually found 
only 1.2% agreement, 


(B)
Doran and Zimmerman 
actually found 
only 3.4% agreement, 


(C)
Anderegg et al.
 actually found 
66% agreement, and 


(D)
Cook et al. 
actually found 
only 0.54% agreement. 


There is no 97%, 98% 
or 100% consensus 
on human-caused
global warming, 
as claimed in these 
four fake studies.


Modern climate "science"
was the original fake news.

It consists of 100% wrong
wild guess predictions
of the future climate.

These predictions started
with Roger Revelle 
in the late 1950s.

The leftist-biased 
mainstream press 
consistently ignoring 
how inaccurate the 
predictions have been.

It should be no surprise
the fake news 
is supported by 
fake consensus 
"studies".

(Not that real science 
is based on a popular vote 
of scientists).




In the history of science,
a "consensus" was strong
evidence that the underlying
science was wrong --
-- ranging from slightly wrong, 
to completely wrong.

Progress in real science
is almost always 
from individuals, 
or small teams, 
that prove the
scientific consensus 
was wrong, 
often after years 
of facing
character attacks!

Following are four articles
summarizing the four most
popular fake surveys.

The surveys are used to 
support "modern" climate science, 
led by government bureaucrats 
claiming a coming climate catastrophe 
to ensure their own job security:

(1) 
Predict a climate crisis 
every year.

(2)
Reason given: 
"Because we have 
science degrees,
and we say so ! "

(3) 
Claim you must be right, 
because almost everyone 
you know agrees with you !

(4) 
Claim that 97%
of scientists agree, 
so the science 
must be "settled".