The claim of “consensus” is one of the pillars of sand that is supporting the climate change political movement. The problem is, the way this conclusion was reached, it isn’t defensible. Searching published articles for certain words doesn’t prove a “consensus.” No one went or record supporting the claims of “consensus,” it all came from research of articles.
The story of how Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome set up the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to direct political and scientific focus on CO2 to ‘prove’ it was causing global warming is well documented…Consensus was a central theme to the political promotion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) from the start. Initially, it was the 6000+ representatives of the IPCC. Later, it became the manufactured percentages of 95 of Naomi Oreskes and 97 for John Cooke. However, there was another form of manufactured consensus that continues to influence public and political opinion…consensus of authority in the climate deception are the Nobel Prize, jointly awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC and the openly declared support of scientific societies for the IPCC Reports.
For there to be any real scientific “consensus” one would need models that accurately define the factors impacting global temperature. The model the IPCC has chosen claims CO2 is the most significant factors, yet all their models fail to demonstrate the validity of that theory. No real scientist would ever go on record defending the results of the IPCC Models. The models do more to discredit the theory than to validate it.
Because the failure is so spectacular, it is doubtful that any real scientist would testify before congress as to the claims that man is responsible for 100% of the warming over the past century. The evidence simply doesn’t exist to support that claim…and Michael Mann knows it.
Congress should investigate this claim of “consensus,” and demand that Mann, Oreskes, and Cooke produce a list of scientists that support their claims. It is one thing to anonymously support a position on a survey, it is a whole other thing to testify in front of congress and risk your reputation. Congress should call the consensus bluff and tell these “scientists” to put up or shut-up. My bet is they will shut-up. Congress needs to stop investigating the science, and start exposing the lies.
The Useless Nations and cracked urns like Strong just setting us uup for World Goverment all under the Useless Nations and their New World Order(NWO)How soon will they set up a Enviromental Inquistion to persicute all the global warming climate change skeptics or those who refuse to worship and the Chruch of Gaia and sacrifice their duaghters and sons to their pagan deities
Source: Dr. Michael Crichton, Aliens cause Global Warming, 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
РDr. Michael Chrichton, (1942–2008): Educated at Harvard University A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964–65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969–1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988. The books he has authored have sold over 200 million copies.