We here at Natural News have regularly pointed out the hypocrisy and outright deception that encompasses media coverage and political discussion regarding so-called “global warming/climate change.” The issue is as phony as President Obama’s great economy and the recent fake news Washington Post report on “fake news.”
One of the most outrageously false of all the false claims is the one regularly spewed by Left-wing warming alarmists up to and including President Obama is that “97 percent of scientists” believe humans are causing the planet to warm, a figure which forms a genuine “concensus” of “settled science.”
The big problem with that claim is that it is based on incredibly skewed sampling.
As noted by The Last Great Stand website, the 97 percent consensus only makes sense to you if you also believe that nearly 100 million Americans out of about 320 million currently not in the work force really does produce an unemployment rate of just 4.7 percent.
Phony ‘consensus’
Author and frequent on-air political host and commentator Mark Steyn, in a recently published book, A Disgrace to the Profession, documented the fraud surrounding the so-called consensus figure:
Margaret R. K. Zimmerman, MS, conducted an opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change, the results of which were published by the University of Illinois in 2008. This was a two-question survey, and in fact was conducted online. It was sent to 10,258 earth scientists. Of that figure, only 3,146 responded.
Of the responding scientists, an overwhelming number – 96.2 percent – came from North America. Only 6.2 percent came from Canada, so the United States is dramatically over-sampled even within the North American sample.
Nine percent of U.S. respondents were from California, making California very over-represented within not just the U.S. sample, but elsewhere: That figure is twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined. Of the 10 percent of non-U.S. respondents, Canada comprised 62 percent, Steyn noted.
So the sample was very distorted, but apparently Zimmerman wasn’t satisfied yet, so researchers working with her further distorted it by selecting 79 of their sample and deeming them “experts.” Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from an added question, lowering the total number of scientists to 77; 75 of the 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 percent of them were found to agree with the “consensus” claim.
This is where the “97 percent of scientists” claim comes from. So in essence, a handful of scientists, mostly from Left-wing California, get to decide climate policy for the world’s 6.5 billion people.
In addition to this sham, the “researchers” also invited respondents to comment on the so-called “hockey stick” model, which purports to show a dramatic increase in global warming in a very short period of time (the Industrial Age, basically). That drew three comments: one blandly positive, and the other two – not so much.
Hoaxers have had to alter data in order to fool the masses
As scandalous as this is, however, it’s not the only way climate hoaxers have been manipulating the issue. As Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has reported, the data claiming to support the charge that our planet is warming has been repeated faked. He cited the web site Real Science, which noted in June 2014 that NASA began manipulating its climate data after the year 2000.
Prior to that year, the site reported, the space agency’s climate division had been showing the Earth in a perpetual cooling trend (even The New York Times reported on it, in February 1989):
Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period.
Right after 2000, NASA and NOAA changed data to make it appear much colder in the past and much warming in the present.
Sources:
