Learning To Communicate Like A Climate Criminal

ScreenHunter_1099 Mar. 28 07.00

Let’s extend that logic. 99.9999% of animal experts agree that Polar Bears kill people. Therefore Polar Bears are the primary cause of human death.

After mastering that logic, you are qualified to be a government certified climate liar.

About stevengoddard

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

21 Responses to Learning To Communicate Like A Climate Criminal

  1. Brad says:

    Curious, what is a peer reviewed climate article? Me thinks he does not venture out of his cave too often.

    • omanuel says:

      Brad, Steven is right again.

      A peer-reviewed article has been reviewed by one’s peers. A peer is, by definition:

      1. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one’s peers.

      2. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status, etc.

      The peer-reviewed paper of a crook must therefore be peer-reviewed by other crooks.

      That explains the 97% consensus.

  2. Morgan says:

    2? Here are 1350+ peer reviewed articles by climate skeptics.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    How many standard deviations of error are there between 2 and 1350

  3. Justa Joe says:

    Best crap $20 billion can buy

    How many of the purported 10.9K “articles” weren’t even principally concerned with proving AGW but merely assumed it as a given?

  4. Gamecock says:

    99.98% of clergy believe in the existence of God.

    We now have the long awaited proof that God exists.

  5. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for reminding us of the humor in Big Brother’s attempt to rule the world by frightening falsehoods disguised as “settled science!”

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practice to deceive.”

  6. gator69 says:

    Einstein said it only takes one.

    • Dmh says:

      Totally, Einstein was a maverick in the Physics community in 1905… and the “greatest scientist of the world” 15 years later.
      A similar problem is happening today with cosmology and particle physics.

      • omanuel says:

        Dmh,

        By coincidence, I served as a “carrier pigeon” for a Japanese Einstein, Paul Kazuo Kuroda, who brought to this country forbidden information about the atomic bomb that he did not share with me and probably could not share with the public.

        Chapter 1: “A Journey to the Core of the Sun: Coincidence

        Click to access Chapter_1.pdf

        Chapter 2: “A Journey to the Core of the Sun: Acceptance of Reality

        Click to access Chapter_2.pdf

        • Tel says:

          I don’t have a problem believing there is an iron core in the Sun, it’s academic how big it is, because there’s no way to directly measure it… but as far as I can see the Iron in the Sun should just sit around inert and never react.

          What I don’t get is if the iron core of the Sun generates so much energy, why doesn’t someone get a load of iron and make a really big reactor here on Earth? I mean, if it was as easy as that, large iron structures would start heating up at least. Iran or North Korea could become a super power. Just whip up an Iron super weapon.

          The other thing I don’t get, is that given Fe-56 is the most stable element, how can you make a reactor out of it? Stable means it cannot deliver usable energy.

  7. Dmh says:

    It’s called academic bias. At the end of the XIX century the Physics community was *certain* that all phenomena in the Universe could be explained by classical Electromagnetism, Newtonian Mechanics and classical Thermodynamics.
    There were only *two little problems* that had not been explained by those theories, but most certainly they would be sooner or later, with no much difficulty: the blackbody radiation and the fine structure of atomic spectra.
    Well, these two “little problems” were shown, at the beginning of the XX century, to be *impossible* to explain with classical theories, and became the phenomenological “seeds” of Quantum Mechanics.
    In addition, the physicists of the XIX century were also looking for the “ether” as the mechanical medium for propagation of EM radiation, which Einstein showed to be non necessary in his paper of 1905, setting the basis for the revolutionary ideas of Special Relativity.
    I believe a similar “problem” is happening with climatology today, the community is blinded to the fact that CO2 has no effect on climate- as it’s obvious for anyone that studies the climate, but is not a climatologist- *and* that the Sun ultimately drives all climate changes.
    I believe that, with the help of the present solar grand minimum, we could have the reversal of this trend in a short time (a few years) because the new cooling trend is still not strong enough to make the average climatologist to review his previous positions, as they could be explained away as normal oscillations of the previous trend.
    I’m afraid that we (the “skepticals”) will have to be patient and continue to fight against the AGW hoax for a few more years.

    • B says:

      There are numerous myths, held together by the schools, politics, and social pressure that are far older than CO2 driven global warming and show no sign of crumbling. Even a sudden ice age will just have them modify their stories and data to fit. There’s snow in July, but it will still be the hottest July on record. Some people will believe it, most of the rest will pretend to. That’s how these political systems have always worked.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Actually it is much worse than that the ‘Consensus’ is 99.7% of the papers do not consider ‘global warming’ to be dangerous!

    So why in heck are we spending money like drunken sailors on solar bird fryers and bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes while doing our best to completely wreck our economy?

    Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

    …A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

    “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

    The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

    The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. …..

    Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

  9. Jeez, it’s been like 48 hours, maybe 72. Hasn’t that paper been thoroughly demolished by now? I think the number of “little pieces” these papers get shredded into is described by the formula:

    shredded little pieces = 10^(hours/10).

    So it should be in at least a million pieces by now.

    Haven’t been looking for the takedowns on it yet.

  10. aeroguy48 says:

    They cant do any better than that? Kim Jong III , ‘Dear Leader’ of North Korea achieved 100% in his recent re-erection. Oops meant election.

  11. Andy Oz says:

    350.org has infiltrated Australia and is diverting Uni funds to windmill chasers.
    And there is a push on for superfunds to pull investments in mining.
    If I was a conspiracy nut, I’d think the Greens and Climatastrophists were trying to make Australia into the new Somalia.
    http://m.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion/does-melbourne-invest-in-fossil-fuels/story-e6frgcko-1226867939986

  12. Jeff says:

    Wasn’t this the study which ignored HUNDREDS of skeptical papers? They’re getting pretty desperate with this nonsense.

  13. rw says:

    Hmmm, in this case I wonder where the non-governmental panel on climate change got all their references from – enough to make a 600 or 800 page case. (I can’t remember exactly how big it is, but it’s a large tome.)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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