Hey, 97% of all “scientists” believe in Man-Made Climate Change!
Not.
According to a report in Breitbart News today, at least 485 published scientific papers in 2017 took issue with the Climbit Change crowd, thus undermining the “consensus” (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/10/report-485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-undermine-supposed-consensus-on-climate-change/).
I don’t know how “consensus” ever got to be a scientific standard. You’d think the history of science shows that whenever you’ve got a consensus, the science stops and ossification sets in.
I’m sorry for all the liberals I’ve offended with that statement.
Anyhow, the report breaks down the 485 published scientific papers into four categories. 1) “Climate change” is caused by natural processes, not by people. 2) The “unprecedented weather events” cited by consensus-mongers are not unprecedented at all, but really quite abundant in history. 3) The computer models used by GW alarmists are all wet. 4) The corrective actions recommended by GW alarmists have been ineffective at best, and sometimes even harmful.
To which we might add:
It’s a religion, plain and simple.
Way back in the 1980s, when I think the “global warming” or was it “global cooling” scare was just getting going, I read an article by Warren Brookes in the Boston Herald. He cited Herbert Jastrow of NASA who pointed out that there was practically zero correlation between the earth’s temperature and human activity.
On the other hand, there was practically perfect correlation between the earth’s temperature and sun spot activity.
I know humans are smart and all, but last I checked, we do not control the sun.
Aren’t sunspots caused by people using too many sheets of toilet paper?
Indeed!
I think the computer models being used are all wet is the best reason. Everyone knows when your computer gets wet it ruins it. Kind of like the sun being able to ruin the earth anytime it wants to.
The models are informed by bias, wishful thinking, and politics. They also can’t possibly be set up to take into account undetected, subtle, but important changes in the oceans and the atmosphere. So they have no hope of being accurate.
“Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily — and even hourly — basis, particularly over land.”
Among other things.
Of course. I’m finding that absolutely no “excuse” the climate change activists use holds water, on all levels of the hoax.
I have always wondered about that very aspect of it.