Suppose I told you that Santa Claus lives in Santa Barbara. Now suppose you reported in an article that I told you Santa Claus lives in Santa Barbara. Now suppose some "fact-checker" slammed you for falsely saying Santa Claus lives in Santa Barbara.
Would the "fact-checker" be right? Obviously not. You accurately reported what I told you.
Seems like a pretty simple and obvious difference. But maybe not if you're a "fact-checker" named Scott Johnson working with "Climate Feedback" and dedicated to stamping out every challenge to the "overwhelming scientific consensus" that human activity has brought global temperature to unprecedented heights and threatens catastrophe for humanity and the world...........To Read More....
My Take - A criminal who was being interviewed while in jail said when confronted by the police: "You deny, deny, deny. Never give up the con"
Well, he was in prison, so that apparently that must not work, so why do they keep doing it?
The same question should be applied to those touting that mankind is doooooomed, doooooomed I tell you, as a result of Climate Change. Amazing, it used to be Global Warming, but all the computer models, and all the predictions have failed or are failing and right now the world is in what they're calling "A Pause". In short, the warming that was taking place has stopped. In point of fact, since the sun plays such an important part in global temperatures, the lack of sunspots indicates we may be going into a global minnimum, where the world can get seriously cold, and history has shown warming periods were great for mankind, but cold is disastrous and people die.
Of course if it does turn seriously cold, that's a by product of global warming, or manmade CO2. So then, CO2 causes global warming and it causes global cooling? Did I get that right? That staement would have made George Orwell proud.
The same is true of those who refuse to acknowledge the foundational claims of anthropogenic global warming were based on fraudulent "science". Science these politicians and "scientists" had to know was fraudulent. McKitrick and McIntyre clearly demonstrated the Hockey Stick Graph was ridled with errors. Errors Michael Mann, who originated it, refused to acknowledge. Unrefuted errors that are readily avaible to everyone. Errors that give a clear impression the data must have been manipulated to eliminate any warming periods before now, and yet they still tout it.
The 97% claim has been so strongly debunked it's impossible to support that claim with any degree of integrity.
You may wish to view my Thursday, August 10, 2017 article How Many Constitute 97%? And view my file on this issue, 97%.
These misfits still "deny, deny, deny", and refuse to "give up the con". The only difference between them and the convict is ....he's in jail...... and hopefully they'll join him. They all took government money, and if it can be shown their work was fradulent, and I believe it can be, then they perpetrated a crime. Fraud. Fraud that's cost the world hundreds of billions of dollars. It seems to me that constitutes a felony! Furthermore, e-mails from the East Anglia group have made it clear there was collusion to perpetuate this criminal enterprise. It seems to me that makes it a RICO crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment