97% Of Scientists Find Exactly What They Want To Find

During the hot summer of 1980, climate scientists convinced themselves that it was due to global warming, because that was what they expected to find.

ScreenHunter_2357 Jun. 09 23.36

Gadsden Times – Google News Archive Search

The actual data provided no support for this idea, as hot temperatures peaked in the 1930’s and have been declining ever since.

ScreenHunter_2358 Jun. 09 23.38

These climate geniuses apparently believe that they can determine a trend from a single data point, and specifically ignore all other data points. AKA – incompetent hacks

About stevengoddard

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

14 Responses to 97% Of Scientists Find Exactly What They Want To Find

  1. omanuel says:

    97% of scientists have learned to find evidence for anything the federal research agency needs evidence for in order to get a favorable budget review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). A totalitarian one-world government has been the main goal of the US NAS and frightened world leaders for seventy years (1945-2015).

    Here is a one-page summary of the common problem society faces worldwide because Stalin effectively won WWII and united nations [UN] and independent national academies of science [NAS] into an Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific Truths on 24 Oct 1945:

    Click to access Introduction.pdf

    The US NAS betrayed the trust of the American public after 1945 and misrepresented the main source of energy [1] in cores of:

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planets like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. The expanding Universe,

    but the US NAS still directs lock-step “consensus science” through annual budgetary review of research agencies for Congress – NASA, DOE, EPA, NSF, etc.

    97% of the scientific community comply with this system in exchange for research grants, tenure, recognition and financial gain. Unfortunately, survival of the human species probably depends on the reliability of information we have on the fountain of energy Copernicus discovered at the center of the solar system in 1543.


    1a. “Solar Energy,” Adv. Astron. (submitted 1 Sept 2104; published privately 17 Mar 2015)

    Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf

    1b. “Supplement for Teachers” (published 30 Mar 2015) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Supplement.pdf

    1c. “Intro: Science for Teachers” (published 23 May 2015)

    Click to access Introduction.pdf

  2. HankH says:

    Not at all in defense of their conclusions… In fact, quite the opposite, I’ve run their raw data myself on some of the larger studies and what I’ve found is they can’t do non-stationary time series modeling correctly nor read the specifications to contributing datasets. If they’re not adjusting the data within context to the correct sample time, they’re moving selected data points or entire data sets temporally. I’ve personally critiqued and written about the temporal adjustments made to the data.

    So, their conclusions may actually have a good model fit and an acceptable p value and low residuals but it’s meaningless when the time period of the sample is skewed, often systematically.

    Speaking of p values, I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed but this latest study purporting to hide the hiatus boasts a p value of <0.1. In my work a paper with that high of a degree of uncertainty would never get published. They’re publishing statistical crap and people are swallowing it out of sheer ignorance.

  3. DavidS says:

    I’ve been making graphs of record high temperatures and total days 32C or more for various Canadian locales that have datasets continuous back to the 1800s and posting them at;
    The peaks/preponderance of hot days can be anywhere from the 1910s to the late 40s depending on the location. I’ll be posing more locations as time goes on but so far there is nothing to support a claim that we are getting more extreme high temperatures than the first half of the 20th century.

  4. What a great Metric… seriously… percent of days over 100 degrees…

    These total tools on Progressive websites like Huff Po and Think Progress continually want to claim more and more heat… were a hotter climate really the case we would CERTAINLY have more 100 degree days NOW than 1934-1936…

  5. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    Facts matter not to these zealots — what matters to them is only seriousness of their “illusions.”

  6. rachase says:

    A very critical issue with the historical temperature data that all these “scientific” studies completely pretend does not exist, continues to be that of the proven urban heat effect on 90% of the ground stations worldwide. That there is readily available photographic documentation of network station after station where air conditioners, pavement, steel buildings, etc. have been placed next to the recording station over the past several decades, bothers them not since the increase in recorded temps serves their fraud well.

  7. Andy DC says:

    It is a propaganda/brainwashing campaign. Very little to do with science.

  8. Andrew S says:

    Bad English Alert: “…”greenhouse effect”, WHOSE problem is that “we’re creating it.”” But maybe I missed the report: “EPA Declares Greenhouse Effect A Sentient Being.” 😉

  9. AndyG55 says:

    FYI, USCRN is COOLING at 0.32ºF/decade since it was established in 2005.


    In fact all “un-tampered” data sets that attempt an even, consistent locality set are showing cooling since the end of the 1998 El Nino.

  10. Rosco says:

    If 97% of climate scientists are right and 99% of the atmosphere doesn’t radiate IR to space and Trenberth et al are right that almost 83 % of the IR loss to space is due to GHGs why will increasing the amount of them “trap heat” ?

    Oxygen and nitrogen need to cool down as well so they must rely on GHGs to radiate their heat away – more GHGs more radiation to space I would have thought as O2 and N2 are supposedly not affected by IR – not the reverse ?

    Perhaps more CO2 will lead to cooling ?

  11. rocknblues81 says:

    This is a pretty smart dude:

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