Posted on 09/08/2013 1:26:34 PM PDT by CedarDave
If any business were to submit a prospectus as patently false and deliberately dishonest as the ones used to advance the cause of the global warming industry, its directors would all be in prison by now.
Does that mean Ed Davey should have followed Chris Huhne into the slammer for his claim to Andrew Neil on BBC Daily Politics that in "a recent analysis of 12,000 climate papers…of the scientists who expressed a view 97 per cent said that climate change was happening and that it was human-made activity."?
Not quite, unfortunately, because nothing Davey has said there is technically untrue. A better candidate for prison, actually, would be whoever tweets under the name @BarackObama. When he Tweeted: "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" he was promulgating a demonstrable untruth.
No one has ever doubted that climate changes. Pretty much everyone – probably more than 97 per cent, even – agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities.
But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists – certainly far, far fewer than 97 per cent of them – would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim.
An obscure green political activist called John Cook and a few of his eco-cronies produced a pseudo-scientific paper so riddled with flaws that it ought to have been tossed straight in the bin. Instead, it was bigged up by a compliant mainstream media, a desperate and propaganda-hungry green industry, and by the US President as a vitally significant meta-analysis offering indisputable proof of the scientific "consensus" on "climate change."
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Also from the 70's: 
It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, The book started ”The battle to feed all of humanity is over … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” He spent much of the next decade writing other books and articles in support of his thesis in Population Bomb, adding in a later article “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”
An analysis of the John Cook paper on “consensus” can be found at the below link:
“Consensus? What Consensus?” by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf
Without the “models” and the “modellers” there never would have been such a thing as global warming.
And what percent of scientists "expressed a view" as compared to those who did not?
I remember Excedrin commercials with David Janssen, where they exclaimed "in studies of pain other than headache..., so the next time you have a headache, take Excedrin"!
Bttt.
HERE is an article from 1922.
And here.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp
I would like to know the actual wording of the question. Climate change is always happening...with or without man.
One statement struck me as curiously unsupported, though:
"So we ought, when considering our expensive prevention/mitigation policies, factor in the key point that "future generations" are going to be richer than we are and therefore better able to pay for any problems that "climate change" may cause them.There wasn't any data, link, etc. supporting the contention that our children will somehow be "richer" than us, and our grandchildren richer yet, and on ad infinitum.
Granted, in a healthy society and civilization, wealth is created by the inventors, builders, and other makers and do-ers. But I think we here at FR are generally agreed that the "takers" now outnumber the "makers", and that society is racing headlong into the toilet at an increasing rate. Likewise civilization, at the very least Western civilization, is generally in trouble.
So whence this brave statement that our kids and grandkids and so on are gonna be richer than us?
I'd sure like it to be true, but I don't presently buy it.
Other than that one point, terrific posting, thank you!!
Bookmark
Bump
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
It’s a great big universe
And we’re all really puny.
We’re just tiny little specks
About the size of Mickey Rooney.
It’s big and black and inky
And we are small and dinky
It’s a big universe and we’re not.
Good column. Thanks for posting.
Love the last paragraph.................
ping
If any business were to submit a prospectus as patently false and deliberately dishonest as the ones used to advance the cause of the global warming industry, its directors would all be in prison by now.I don't advocate prison for them -- each and every one of them should be publicly executed.
Exactly!!!
....to increase it's magnetic field....
and make a good crop of sunspots before elections in 2016....
(PhysOrg.com) -- Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades.
The last time the sunspots disappeared altogether was in the 17th and 18th century, and coincided with a lengthy cool period on the planet known as the Little Ice Age....and lasted 400 years.
Good luck surviving with no electricity and GE modified seeds.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news203746768.html#jC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.