Alarmist Blogger Admits That The “97% Consensus” Is Bullshit

ScreenHunter_396 Dec. 06 12.54

Twitter / SteveSGoddard: @wottsupwiththat @dana1981 …

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Alarmist Blogger Admits That The “97% Consensus” Is Bullshit

  1. omanuel says:

    Steve, I will explain in Chapter 2 of my autobiography that the root of mankind’s current misery is a 1945 decision to hide NEUTRON REPULSION [1] – the source of energy that causes cores of heavy atoms, some planets, stars and galaxies to violently fission and/or steadily emit neutrons that spontaneously decay to hydrogen (H) atoms.

    Rather than accept reality of the power that made our elements and then sustained the origin and evolution of life, the scientific revolution that Copernicus started in 1543, very quietly ended in 1945.

    1. Oliver K. Manuel, “Neutron repulsion,” The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012):

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    Post 1990 vintage climate scientists were not admitted into their doctorate programs unless they already agreed with the Chicken Little science. So a poll of these is virtually worthless. Poll older climate scientists and the number is going to be much different. Better yet, poll meteorologists, and we find 50% or more don’t buy the warmist baloney.

    • David A says:

      Put the acronym “C” in front of AGW, and a lot more then 50% reject the thesis.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Also, while an American Meteorological Society poll found that 52 percent of meteorologists believe global warming is happening and is mostly human-caused, and 48 percent do not, the survey also found that meteorologists with professed liberal political views were far more likely to believe global warming is human-caused than the others. So, if we exclude those with extreme liberal views, then the numbers will change dramatically against the leftist agw tripe.

        • David A says:

          Please do not forget to place the “C” whenever you type CAGW, as the C is the basis of the desired political power. Thanks in advance

  3. I’d like to read his latest survey. In previous survey’s he’s done the “consensus” position seems to be somewhere in the 60-80% range.

  4. TallDave says:

    Funny how no one ever takes a poll of what scientists think about the atomic weight of beryllium.

  5. Bob Greene says:

    I prefer my science to have a strong consensus, or I won’t have any science atall.

  6. Science is not a popularity contest.

  7. Andy DC says:

    It is not hard to achieve consensus when your means of support (Government grants) is at stake. No one is going to pay you to study a problem that you do not believe exists.

    • geologyjim says:

      Andy DC –

      I would rather phrase it “No one is going to pay you to study a problem that THEY do not believe exists”.

      And, because it’s gummint money we’re talking about, the real truth is ‘No one is going to pay you to study a problem that THEY do not believe CAN BE EXPLOITED FOR POLITICAL GAIN”.

      There, now that’s fixed.

  8. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Too many letters.. . . . “Alarmist Blogger Admits that the 97% Consensus is Bullshit.”

    Should be “Alarmist Blogger is 97% Bullshit.”

    There, much better.

  9. tom0mason says:

    If a consensus of scientist came to a collective decision that some theory proved a condition but did no work to materially prove it. Would it still be true? If these scientists also allowed the education and politics of the nation be shaped by this decision, would it be moral?

    If later an unknown and unregarded man, working at menial job, and not a scientific specialist, mused on these theories, then finally discovers what is wrong with them and thus finds a genuine truth. Could he possibly be right? Should the collective let him speak?

    Days were different in Einstein’s time?

  10. How much longer will global warming have to be over before the government stops granting money to these losers and they can get jobs selling used cars? Do we have to wait until the next ice age?

    How much longer can they keep lying before SOMEBODY in the government does what Abbot down in Oz did and just tell them to shut the hell up?

    • Ivan says:

      and they can get jobs selling used cars
      Given that none of them would be capable of selling used cars (or doing anything useful, for that matter), my guess is that the answer is “quite a long while yet.”
      And Abbot hasn’t got it all his own way yet — he still has to battle daily against a rabid public broadcaster that is totally out of control, and a virulently left-wing “progressive” media that are jointly conducting a relentless anti-democratic jihad against a government which they quite openly hate.

    • rw says:

      Given the tenacity of entrenched belief systems, it may require a 3-mile layer of ice to finally smother this thing.

  11. rw says:

    if von Storch only got a score in the 80’s with a bent field like “climate science”, that’s encouraging. Maybe the skeptics are finally coming out of the closet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s