Senate Democrats steamed over Ted Cruz’s hearing disputing climate-change science

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, December 9, 2015 | Valerie Richardson

[az_gila]

I think the best thing to do is to go after the 97% consensus bit that is always quoted. It the one item that the libs go after and quote to prove they are right. They can quote it with no scientific thinking required for the masses.

As far as I can tell it’s based on two (maybe three) papers published world-wide. There are a similar number of technical papers/surveys published that come up a majority, but nowhere near 97%, numbers.

We need to make sure these get more publicity and make the politician-quoted 97% lose it’s traction.

Imagine a politician saying “Global Warming must be here and fixed, 75% of scientists say so”.

Doesn’t have the same impact does it?

[mrsmel]

Watch Pastor Billy Crone’s “Final Countdown Ultimate” series on YouTube, that technology is already being used, Sweden is already talking about going to a cashless society in the next few years, Mexico is implementing a program where people who receive welfare must be microchipped, and so much more. His series is chock-full of information about this, and how it’s already in motion. If you don’t want to watch the whole series (there are a lot of episodes dealing with different aspects of end times prophecy and how it’s all falling into place), look for the three or four episodes dealing with technology, the word “technology” will be in the title.

[zeugma]

 

Mark Steyn's written submitted testimony.

Great stuff!

You're not kidding. That was excellent. Classic Steyn in every way.

Mark Steyn's written submitted testimony.

Great stuff!

[Peet]

Every Man-Made Global Warming report I’ve ever heard about has had to ADJUST the RAW DATA to achieve their desired results.

---

Damrite, Cajun! My first computer language was FORTRAN (yes, THAT long ago) and I perused some of the source code in “foia.tgz” released by the whistleblower at the Climatic Research Unit - University of East Anglia. Whoever wrote the programs even in some cases documented the adjustments as “fudge factor”. Made it a LOT easier to find the places they just added to/multiplied raw input data.

Note also the “models” are nothing more than computer programs written to specifications of the bosses. Like boss Michael Mann. Mikey is the luser who made M4GW[1] take his image out of their brilliant spoof “Hide The Decline” ‘cause he couldn’t take the (well deserved) mockery.

[1] Search for “Minnisotans For Global Warming” (M4GW) if you want a good laugh. My favorite is “Frozen Wasteland” from the Who’s Baba O’Riley (aka Teenage Wasteland).

[Timocrat]

I think the best thing to do is to go after the 97% consensus..

The 97% is a manufactured piece of nonsense. It was intended by the authors as a propaganda piece not a scientific study. It has been debunked many times over. Anybody who quotes that figure knows nothing about the real position of Climate Scientists. The 97% debunked

[az_gila]

I think the best thing to do is to go after the 97% consensus..

The 97% is a manufactured piece of nonsense. It was intended by the authors as a propaganda piece not a scientific study. It has been debunked many times over. Anybody who quotes that figure knows nothing about the real position of Climate Scientists. The 97% debunked

---

I know it's been debunked, but that's not my point.

The non-technical general public is fixated on that number as “proof”, whether we like it or not. We need to publicize all of the other reports/technical surveys.

Joe Q. Public sees one very high number that is always the same - to him that looks like a consensus and all other numbers come from deniers.

Spread the data from these technical papers around with other numbers and then it looks like uncertainty amongst the scientists - and hence a lack of consensus. Arguing data with Joe Q. non-technical Public just gets you nowhere when they can fixate on 97%. that's why Obummer uses it.

This will work even if most of the numbers are majorities for AGW - it simply breaks the "consensus".

[TXnMA]

"We need to stop debating whether climate change is real. The science is settled, and Senator Cruz is out of touch. The American people want action. Most of Congress wants action. We need to work together and lead the world in..."

Sen. Tom_Udalls_spricht.jpg

[TXnMA]

" There are a similar number of technical papers/surveys published that come up a majority, but nowhere near 97%, numbers."

~~~~~~

Are you unaware of the Climate Nazi's near-100% control over the peer review process in climatology -- and that papers that "deny" AGW simply do not get published?

Only one side is allowed to "speak". How's that for a "Majority Consensus"...?