This story is unavailable.

There are a lot of lies in this article, but it isn’t EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt who is doing the lying: “97 percent of climate scientists agree humans are the primary cause” of Global Warming.

This at least is slightly more honest than the often-repeated lie that there is a 97% Scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and caused by Human CO2 emissions. The truth is that a review was made of all published papers that contained the terms “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”, which excludes all but self-styled Climate Scientists from the scientific consensus. Climate Scientists are a tiny sub-species of the Scientist Genus, but Meteorologists, Physicists, Chemists and Engineers have at least as much scientific training as these few, and are entitled to have their views considered: most are underwhelmed by Climate Science and view its adherents as being from the shallow end of eth Science gene pool.

Even then the reviewers found too much dissent, so they excluded all papers that did not come to a conclusion of the cause of warming, all the papers that said “there has been 0.6 degrees C warming since 1975, but we have no idea what the cause is.” That took out all the non-political papers, almost all, anyway. A few papers that proposed that the warming was just a blip in the long thaw after the last ice-age couldn’t be excluded without the cherry-picking being absurdly obvious, or perhaps they were looking for a slightly more believable result: 97% looks like the election result in Stalin’s USSR: 100% would have looked like North Korean election results.

The 97% Consensus is a Big Lie worthy of Joseph Goebbels based on research so shonky its authors should hang their heads in shame.

So 97% of Global Warming Alarmists think naughty humans are to blame: big deal. The journalist who repeated this lie are either naïve beyond belief, or are co-conspirators: No-one has ever seen 97% of scientists agree on anything that is unproven: the split is usually 60:40 at best.

Ask yourself some simple questions:

Why would real scientists work so hard to stop contrary hypotheses being tested? That is the heart of the Scientific Method, which is founded on Skepticism. “The Science is in!” is not a scientific statement; it is a political one.

Why is a 0.6 degree warming a problem? The weather is better now than it was in the 1960s, plants are growing faster and deserts are shrinking, so where’s the problem?

Is the only remaining AGW existential threat Flooding from rising sea-levels? Let’s consider that then: flooding can only occur should land-based glaciers melt into the sea, since sea-ice already displaces its weight in water. There are two major land-based Ice Caps, one in Greenland, and one in Antarctica. The average temperature in these places after the last Century of Global Warming is -10C and -30C respectively. Since both are well under the melting point of Ice, I conclude that neither ice mass is likely to suddenly melt any millennia soon. What will happen is the slow 2mm per annum sea-level rise that has been happening for the last 20,000 years since the last ice-age, which means that in 1000 more years the sea-level will be two metres higher. We will build sea-walls to keep the sea out, or we will gradually move inland.

Even if one accepts the worst-case of 3 degrees warming, that is still of net benefit to humanity, and does not justify the war on Carbon.

There are plenty of sensible scientists who oppose the current Climate Alarmist position.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.