PUTTING THE ‘CON’ IN CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

Putting the ‘Con’ in ‘Consensus’ There is no 97% consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues (Appeared in the Financial Post May 2015). It was the lead up to the Paris Climate Summit, there was massive activist pressure in and on all governments to fall in lines with the ‘global warming’ agenda, to accept emission targets which was reported as “could harm our economy”. Governments worldwide, including NZ’s threw out domestic economy under electric vehicles, wind and solar farms, the economy was to be like a train wreckage

It was reported that 97% of scientists agreed with the climate change debate, as it turns out that was a massive lie, it was made up. Climate Activist Bill McKibben claimed there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are a ‘grave danger’. He was challenged, asked where his source of information came from, he promptly withdraw it. Barack Obama US President at the time sent out a tweet claiming ‘97% climate experts believe global warming is ‘real’ man -made and dangerous”, he was referring to a survey that did not even ask that question, he made it up

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50%) of the post 1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. (But does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, its unknown as to how many experts agree with this). And the statement, even if were true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs. One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. Both statements are inconsistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of government.

The most highly cited papers supposedly found 97% of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers show that 66% actually took no position. Of the remaining 34%, at least 33% supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. OK, so divide 33 by 34 and there you have it 97%, however 33% includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position. There are more recent surveys that shed light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

They are liars, there was no 97% consensus on man-made global warming. Half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession are split on the issue. The Netherlands Environmental Agency published a survey of International Climate Experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, 1868 responses were received. The questions referred only to the post 1950 period. 66% agreed with IPCC that global warming had happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either  did not know or think human influence was not dominant. Again NO 97% Con(Sensus) behind the IPCC

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC. The Dutch survey that described ‘climate experts’ a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. Of 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents – nearly half – believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998. ¾ of the respondents disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and and stated it cannot be predicted.”

The  IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” There are unresolved discrepancies between models, observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity, and Natural Climate variability. Its much too difficult to realistically climate model, simulate clouds. Clouds are an enormous influence in Climate Assessments, conclusions.

Lots of people get called ‘Climate Experts’ and they appear to contribute to the appearance of ‘consensus’, without necessarily even be knowledgeable about the core issues. A massive consensus by the misinformed really is NOT a Consensus.. It’s a big Fat Lie. Its worth nothing of any value. The phony claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence. The Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … People I urge you to call out all these political corrupt propagandists that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington.

They laugh at you if you dare to publicly debate, discuss this Global Warming Agenda. They derail, shut people down. They even shut the real scientists down. This is not real science, this is about controlling populations worldwide into smart cities, to eat bugs and plant foods. To destroy farming communities, small businesses.This is Corporate Capture world wide, the profiteers are those that are the DAVOS Crowd. The WEF and the UN. The WEF representing the Multistakeholder Corporations. The UN with their International Rules. Like hand in glove WEF and UN official partnership agreement 13th June 2019.. The United Nations implements their one world global governance rules and regulations worldwide to be adopted by UN State’s (Includes New Zealand) and the Corporations are deployed worldwide to accelerate the Global One World Governance Agenda to enslave populations worldwide.  UN Agenda 2030. Leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere, at every age.

Those political cronies that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington with their political policing are determining that the people have no voice to call them out on their corruption and lies. I urge you do not remain silent stand up, the more you speak up publically the easier it gets. It may seem uncomfortable, you may feel nervous at first but the more you do this, the more courage you get, the more empowered you are. Remember Silence is the CON in CONSENT.

God Save New Zealand.

Link:  https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

 

 

 

...

Propaganda Machine Blog Posts View all Categories

PFIZER COMBINES SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS PHILANTHROPY – AN APPROACH TO ACCELERATE UN AGENDA 2030

AUG 09, 2018

Whether you are taking a look at its business model or its corporate headquarters in New York City, it does not take long to realize that Pfizer is all in on the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Pfizer was the first multinational pharmaceutical giant to join the U.N. Global Compact in 2002. Now, the company is utilizing its resources in conjunction with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), to bring health care to people around the world — but the company is not stopping there.
Understanding its role as a global leader in care, Pfizer has moved to bring its business and social initiatives together, explained Chris Gray, senior director for institutions and public reporting. The results have led to a cohesive business plan while also advancing the greater good through the SDGs.
“The way in which Pfizer and other corporations are addressing these types of societal challenges [addressed by the SDGs] has evolved significantly in the past decade,” said Gray during a recent edition of 3BL Media’s webcast series titled “Aligning Business With the Global Goals.” “We approach our social mission in a much more holistic manner today with the SDGs, including not only traditional philanthropy but a blended approach through commercially and socially sustainable business models and many more partnerships. We have the passion and commitment among our employees and our leadership to be addressing the goals that were set by the U.N. under the SDGs.”

Pfizer sees a connection between its work with SDG 3 and the other 16 goals laid out by the U.N. almost three years ago. Gray explained the interdependency between the goals means that making good health care accessible could, for example, keep children in school and allow women more freedom to pursue opportunities. This is a driving force for the company’s corporate responsibility goals, made evident by its 2017 Annual Review, and has led to numerous present and future initiatives to achieve various health targets within SDG 3.
But how does a Fortune 500 company, or any company for that matter, strike a balance between people and profit? According to Gray, the process starts by properly positioning the SDGs in business terms for Pfizer’s commercial partners.

While substantial investment will be needed, the Business and Sustainable Development Commission (BSDC) estimated that fulfilling the SDGs could lead to $12 trillion in estimated market opportunities across food and agriculture, cities, energy and health and well-being. According to the BSDC’s 2017 “Better Business Better World” report, health-related opportunities within the goals have a potential value of $1.8 trillion in 2030.
“The role of the business sector is critical, and what we found was some of the support we need internally from our business colleagues requires some proofpoint,” Gray said. “Some of the thought leadership, research and publications that have come out around the SDGs provides a more precise articulation around the alignment between the private- and public-sector benefits. As we work to marshall the engagement and commitment of our commercial colleagues, these types of engagements are really important.”

https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2018/pfizer-combines-sustainable-business-philanthropy-holistic-approach-sdgs/11211

...

LIARS, LIARS PANTS ON FIRE (Part 1)

Exposing the Propaganda Machine
Assistant professor at Auckland University reports in newsarticle that pfizer vaccine is coated in ‘teeny weeny’ fat balls, thats why its so very, very safe.
NZ Newsmedia character assassinates Eric Clapton

Propaganda information is intended to persuade an audience to accept a particular idea or cause, often by using biased material or by stirring up emotions was one of the most powerful tools the Nazis used to consolidate their power and cultivate an “Aryan national community” in the mid-1930s.

Whether or not propaganda was truthful or tasteful was irrelevant to the Nazis. Goebbels wrote in his diary, “No one can say your propaganda is too rough, too mean; these are not criteria by which it may be characterized. It ought not be decent nor ought it be gentle or soft or humble; it ought to lead to success.” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that to achieve its purpose, propaganda must “be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away.”

The effects of propaganda are more complex than simple brainwashing, and that Hitler succeeded because many German people shared some of the beliefs that were transmitted through Nazi propaganda.

...