Debunking the Climate Scam
Billions of Dollars -
Greedy Green Corporations -
No Warming For Two decades -
Bought and Paid For Organizations
5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores
This is a sample see – https://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-
Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for
The new paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed.
The twelve clues that good science journalists ought to notice:
1. Thousands of papers support man-
Cook may have found 3,896 papers endorsing the theory that man-
2. Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-
3. Cook’s method is a logical fallacy: Argument from Authority. This is not science, it’s PR.
4. The number of papers is a proxy for funding
As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that
attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding
for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-
5. Most of these consensus papers assume the theory is correct but never checked. They are irrelevant.
Cook gives the following as an example of a paper with implicit endorsement: “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’. Any researcher studying carbon sequestion has almost certainly not analyzed outgoing radiation from the upper troposphere or considered the assumptions about relative humidity in climate simulations..….(More)
6. Money paid to believers is 3500 times larger than that paid to skeptics (from all sources).
7. Keywords searches may miss the most important skeptical papers.
8. Some of these abstracts are 20 years old — does two decades of new evidence change anything?
9. Naiomi Oreskes found 928 papers with abstracts that didn’t explicitly reject man-
11. What about Science Associations? But they are not masses of scientists — just committees of six
Most science associations never ask members to vote, . ….(More)
12. Cook pretty much says this is not about a scientific argument — it’s a tactic to change public opinion through repetition of the fallacy
The first sentence in both the introduction and the conclusion tell us that the point of this paper is about public perception and government policy. It is not about the science. It is to help change public opinion. There was no attempt to find out whether there was a scientific consensus —….(More)
Cook, Nuccitelli, Green, Richardson, Winkler, Painting, Way, Jacobs and Skuce (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 [Abstract]
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of
tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology,
Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-
Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J.,
Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say
about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2,
Loehle (2009) A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology
Climatic Change (2009) 94:233–245 DOI 10.1007/s10584-
Lindzen, R. & Yong-
Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-
|Past Was Warmer|
|NASA: 30's Hotter|
|CRU Emails - html formatted|
|CRU Emails Simple Format|
|CRU Emails UnFormatted|
|Hockey Stick Links|