98% of which group of scientists? The ones already on a globalist board of some sort? I bet the agreeing scientists on that globalist board only represent 15% of existing scientists in this area of study.
Does anyone know where they get their propaganized "98%" narrative?
There are many science papers claiming numbers around 97%. So it's "science"! However, we all know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics!
The first paper I came across was by Doran and Zimmerman (2009). They sent out surveys to 10,257 "Earth scientists". They got replies from 3,146 but they considered answers from only 77 people for this question. 75 of them agreed. Exactly how they chose those 77 people to believe is somewhat of a mystery.
I have links to several papers but The Science of Statisticulation sums up most of them. They are all seriously flawed in a variety of creative ways.
They did make the mistake of asking the members of the American Meteorological Society a couple of times. The first time they asked only 52% thought that the warming was mainly human. A far cry from 97%. The next year they made sure they got an answer they preferred! Such is statistics.
There is another famous paper by John Cook et al and they decided what the answer was going to be first. Their own data fails to show the 97% figure but, strangely, they do not include the data in the paper. It is on a website somewhere. It turns out that only 0.3% of the papers they looked at said man was mainly responsible. Cook et al also wrote up another paper which summarised the existing 97% papers, including their own, and concluded that it was 97% of scientists!
What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.
These environmental scientists don't make any money. Who funds these studies? If a foundation such as the Bill and Melinda gates foundation give you millions of dollars to find global warming. Your going to find signs of global warming to continue the gravy train.
Can we not do this, if we can infer what the correct spelling is then this kind of correction is silly, especially due to autocorrect, swipe-typing, voice typing etc...
Kerry is really speaking about depopulation here. The atmosphere has only 0.04% Carbon. It's been stable at this amount as long as recordings have been made. Human exhale is 4%. If we got rid of all the vehicles and all the carbon-based fuel, they would still claim there's a crisis. Kerry, along with Al Gore sit close to the top of the pyramid for financially benefiting if the carbon tax is ever implemented.
It was Gores reward for allowing Bush to win and not making a stink during that election debacle. They told him if he sits down and shuts up, they will make him the face of their global warming hoax and give him shitloads of carbon tax credits.
Somehow, impossibly, Al Gore is one of the people who has these credits. So when a manufacturer wants to build something, they have to pay for these hoax tax credits. Conveniently, Al Gore has them. No one ever seems to ask, why? Why does this nobody have all these credits?
That’s one side of the scam. It’s just another tax they created that doesn’t even have to be laundered through a government. They can directly tax business by forcing them to purchase carbon credits.
It’s been rigged this whole time. Gore was paid off. Romney was paid off. Mcain was paid off. There’s hasn’t been an honest election for who knows how long. Maybe the 80s when Reagan won.
Quite right. Not only are the carbon credits directed toward manufacturing, but the ultimate aim is directed at the population. Their not really saying this though. It's always under the guise of saving the environment. Compared to the income tax that has been rightly coined as a tax on the sweat equity of an individual's productivity, the carbon tax is based on an individual's own life. The size of their carbon footprint is dependent on that person's usefulness. Behind all the smoke and mirrors of climate change and saving the environment, the carbon tax is based on population control ; ergo depopulation.
He looks like a Botox Frankenstein. I think the Botox seeped into his brain. CO2 levels are the same as they were 1000 years ago. These use weather modification to augment storm severity and then use the media to drive fear. Driving down CO2 levels lower would affect food production, we would all starve to death. Depopulation is the main agenda. Bleeding your pocket books dry by removing all excess money which will drive people into minute cities.
I always believed their preoccupation with all people living in cities is that it made the people easy nuke targets. Now instead of nuking us, they can release the captured CO2 into the cities, kill off the people and leave valuables behind. Remember the CO2 gas cloud that was emitted from a lake that killed everyone from 4 different villages?
First they get you to agree on a small thing. Then the demands increase and you are on the hook due to prior agreement, and this agreement then is totally abused and they will stretch it till it breaks at the britches.
Finally some facts. Some actual facts. When forests evolved carbon dioxide levels were 1500 ppm, now just 400ppm. If we removed half the remaining carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, photosynthesis would stop and all life dependant on photosynthesis would cease to exist. Plants today are starving. Plant growth follows an exponential curve. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the faster and bigger the plants grow. Does not appear to be a limit. Not only that, but plants are much more efficient with their use of water the higher the concentrations. So all these arid, dry and dessert areas that exist today would be covered in lush vegetation if carbon dioxide levels were higher in the atmosphere. A lot of that carbon dioxide from the past is locked up in limestone deposits or dissolved in the oceans. Current largest land animal is what? African elephant maybe 10 tons? So how did the earth support 100 ton animals in the past? Where did all the vegetation come from to fuel such beasts?
The very best thing we could possibly do for this planet would be to increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Can you imagine the abundance?
Paying taxes to try and stop carbon dioxide from getting into the atmosphere is really peak clown world stupidity. Is infuriating to watch this clown tell such unbelievably stupid lies and for people that passed grade six science to believe them.
Climate is indeed currently changing. Including some of the most severe winters in recent years. And at the same time, Mars' climate is going way more haywire than earth currently. Venus winds are out of control.
Its sad that the modeling and experts are not looking at this, because they all assume a closed system and zero sum understanding of earth climate. There's something shifting in our planetary system which humans did not cause.
Behind Fiat currency and the Synagogue of Satan tricking God's people into thinking we don't own this planet and instead have to spend our entire lives trying to scratch a living just to rent a miniscule sliver.
The Earth is around 8,000 Miles thick, mostly molten rock and metal, the Sun's radiation fluctuates, the Earth's Magnetosphere (Which blocks some of the solar radiation) fluctuates, But Meh Global Warming is Man's fault.
When I heard that word, "quadrillion", it was a dead stop, end of discussion. He's out of his $#@%ing mind. How could he say it with a straight face? As Herman Cain said, "They think we're stupid!"
Was there a single Congressman sharp enough to ask perry to PROVE his/their wild claims of climate disasters? The climate on Earth 'changes' and they have zero Proof that Man=The USA, is the reason and must PAY up, or that that money will Change the outcome.
Their money grubbing scams are so done! Globally the world is on to them and their taxing citizens for their stupid causes! We're all cracking down on the money grubbing BS!
This was good but to prove that it's a girft he should bring in how much money any climate grifter has been making on it and how of all the money funneled to them NOTHING changes. At the end of the day he should have pointed out that despite all the money funneled to climate change the only thing it's done is added more to people's taxes.
From the Dutch Parliament: Eco Terrorist minster Rob Jetten: 28 billion will buy you is temp reduction of 0,000038 degrees, which china can neutralize within 1 day.
98% of which group of scientists? The ones already on a globalist board of some sort? I bet the agreeing scientists on that globalist board only represent 15% of existing scientists in this area of study.
Does anyone know where they get their propaganized "98%" narrative?
98%? I think it is inflation - it used to be 97%!
There are many science papers claiming numbers around 97%. So it's "science"! However, we all know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics!
The first paper I came across was by Doran and Zimmerman (2009). They sent out surveys to 10,257 "Earth scientists". They got replies from 3,146 but they considered answers from only 77 people for this question. 75 of them agreed. Exactly how they chose those 77 people to believe is somewhat of a mystery.
I have links to several papers but The Science of Statisticulation sums up most of them. They are all seriously flawed in a variety of creative ways.
They did make the mistake of asking the members of the American Meteorological Society a couple of times. The first time they asked only 52% thought that the warming was mainly human. A far cry from 97%. The next year they made sure they got an answer they preferred! Such is statistics.
There is another famous paper by John Cook et al and they decided what the answer was going to be first. Their own data fails to show the 97% figure but, strangely, they do not include the data in the paper. It is on a website somewhere. It turns out that only 0.3% of the papers they looked at said man was mainly responsible. Cook et al also wrote up another paper which summarised the existing 97% papers, including their own, and concluded that it was 97% of scientists!
Thanks so much for the informative reply! 👍
No problem. It was my previous hobby before 2016!
I'll bet they have a couple dart boards in their backroom (one would be all they needed) because global...climate change is soooo complicated..
They're using the IPCC narrative from the good ole Al Gore days. Just the same bullshit over and over again.
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
Great article. I will use this one!
What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.
67.3% of statistics are just made up.
😆
You did get that right? I made up that 67.3% statistics are just made up.
Yes. I laughed. Good humor. I love this community.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
This one done a long time ago, but 9k PhD disagree with global warming.
Glad to have that. Thanks!!! I just sent it to my college-brainwashed son.
I used it 20 years ago in global warming arguments. That's why I knew it was out their.
There
User name checks out....
Thanks.
They've got pretty big testicles so one can only guess that their rectum would be sizable enough to pull out such a narrative.
😆
You are the emission they want to reduce. Period.
Kamala said as much today.
These environmental scientists don't make any money. Who funds these studies? If a foundation such as the Bill and Melinda gates foundation give you millions of dollars to find global warming. Your going to find signs of global warming to continue the gravy train.
You are = you're
(You're welcome, handshake.)
Can we not do this, if we can infer what the correct spelling is then this kind of correction is silly, especially due to autocorrect, swipe-typing, voice typing etc...
He can't control it. It's like a tic.
Good exchange....even though Kerry did his usual talk louder. Faster and say nothing trick. Thank you.
Pretty sure he had James Taylor waiting in the wings if he was at a loss for words.
Funnily enough, the prostitute song would be fitting kek
Kerry is really speaking about depopulation here. The atmosphere has only 0.04% Carbon. It's been stable at this amount as long as recordings have been made. Human exhale is 4%. If we got rid of all the vehicles and all the carbon-based fuel, they would still claim there's a crisis. Kerry, along with Al Gore sit close to the top of the pyramid for financially benefiting if the carbon tax is ever implemented.
If those two sit at the top, it must be a very crappy pyrimid..
Like any Ponzi scheme getting in early are the benefactors of it.
It was Gores reward for allowing Bush to win and not making a stink during that election debacle. They told him if he sits down and shuts up, they will make him the face of their global warming hoax and give him shitloads of carbon tax credits.
Somehow, impossibly, Al Gore is one of the people who has these credits. So when a manufacturer wants to build something, they have to pay for these hoax tax credits. Conveniently, Al Gore has them. No one ever seems to ask, why? Why does this nobody have all these credits?
That’s one side of the scam. It’s just another tax they created that doesn’t even have to be laundered through a government. They can directly tax business by forcing them to purchase carbon credits.
It’s been rigged this whole time. Gore was paid off. Romney was paid off. Mcain was paid off. There’s hasn’t been an honest election for who knows how long. Maybe the 80s when Reagan won.
Quite right. Not only are the carbon credits directed toward manufacturing, but the ultimate aim is directed at the population. Their not really saying this though. It's always under the guise of saving the environment. Compared to the income tax that has been rightly coined as a tax on the sweat equity of an individual's productivity, the carbon tax is based on an individual's own life. The size of their carbon footprint is dependent on that person's usefulness. Behind all the smoke and mirrors of climate change and saving the environment, the carbon tax is based on population control ; ergo depopulation.
The climate has been changing for many millions of years….nothing new here..you go congressman Perry…keep fighting for the truth..
He looks like a Botox Frankenstein. I think the Botox seeped into his brain. CO2 levels are the same as they were 1000 years ago. These use weather modification to augment storm severity and then use the media to drive fear. Driving down CO2 levels lower would affect food production, we would all starve to death. Depopulation is the main agenda. Bleeding your pocket books dry by removing all excess money which will drive people into minute cities.
I always believed their preoccupation with all people living in cities is that it made the people easy nuke targets. Now instead of nuking us, they can release the captured CO2 into the cities, kill off the people and leave valuables behind. Remember the CO2 gas cloud that was emitted from a lake that killed everyone from 4 different villages?
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gas-cloud-kills-cameroon-villagers
It is not science. It is ICCP dogma.
First they get you to agree on a small thing. Then the demands increase and you are on the hook due to prior agreement, and this agreement then is totally abused and they will stretch it till it breaks at the britches.
Finally some facts. Some actual facts. When forests evolved carbon dioxide levels were 1500 ppm, now just 400ppm. If we removed half the remaining carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, photosynthesis would stop and all life dependant on photosynthesis would cease to exist. Plants today are starving. Plant growth follows an exponential curve. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the faster and bigger the plants grow. Does not appear to be a limit. Not only that, but plants are much more efficient with their use of water the higher the concentrations. So all these arid, dry and dessert areas that exist today would be covered in lush vegetation if carbon dioxide levels were higher in the atmosphere. A lot of that carbon dioxide from the past is locked up in limestone deposits or dissolved in the oceans. Current largest land animal is what? African elephant maybe 10 tons? So how did the earth support 100 ton animals in the past? Where did all the vegetation come from to fuel such beasts?
The very best thing we could possibly do for this planet would be to increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Can you imagine the abundance?
Paying taxes to try and stop carbon dioxide from getting into the atmosphere is really peak clown world stupidity. Is infuriating to watch this clown tell such unbelievably stupid lies and for people that passed grade six science to believe them.
There needs be a great botanist for this planet; Mark Whatney where are ya when we need ya???
dependEnt
Climate is indeed currently changing. Including some of the most severe winters in recent years. And at the same time, Mars' climate is going way more haywire than earth currently. Venus winds are out of control.
Its sad that the modeling and experts are not looking at this, because they all assume a closed system and zero sum understanding of earth climate. There's something shifting in our planetary system which humans did not cause.
This climate BS is the biggest hustle in human history
Long live El Rush-bo for never letting up.
Behind Fiat currency and the Synagogue of Satan tricking God's people into thinking we don't own this planet and instead have to spend our entire lives trying to scratch a living just to rent a miniscule sliver.
The Earth is around 8,000 Miles thick, mostly molten rock and metal, the Sun's radiation fluctuates, the Earth's Magnetosphere (Which blocks some of the solar radiation) fluctuates, But Meh Global Warming is Man's fault.
1.6 Quadrillion from American taxpayers? These numbers don't even mean anything any more!
Grifters is right!
That's what most big banks are holding in "derivitives" what ever they are.
Bingo.
The derivatives time bomb. 2008 was a dry run.
When I heard that word, "quadrillion", it was a dead stop, end of discussion. He's out of his $#@%ing mind. How could he say it with a straight face? As Herman Cain said, "They think we're stupid!"
Cracker Jax money
KEK
Give me one thing Kerry has said will come to pass where he was right. Stop listening to this clown.
This slam dunk was so beautiful 👏. Thx for posting 🙌
Was there a single Congressman sharp enough to ask perry to PROVE his/their wild claims of climate disasters? The climate on Earth 'changes' and they have zero Proof that Man=The USA, is the reason and must PAY up, or that that money will Change the outcome.
“Are all the scientists grifting?” Look no further than Covid!🤷🏼♂️ Zero chance that dude is a human
Very good!!
Their money grubbing scams are so done! Globally the world is on to them and their taxing citizens for their stupid causes! We're all cracking down on the money grubbing BS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88SreO1DtnE John Kerry on jets
This was good but to prove that it's a girft he should bring in how much money any climate grifter has been making on it and how of all the money funneled to them NOTHING changes. At the end of the day he should have pointed out that despite all the money funneled to climate change the only thing it's done is added more to people's taxes.
From the Dutch Parliament: Eco Terrorist minster Rob Jetten: 28 billion will buy you is temp reduction of 0,000038 degrees, which china can neutralize within 1 day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zk9YmED48 John Kerry river boat his lies
Grifters gonna grift.
About f'ing time
Perry is right, Kerry is wrong
Science isn't about agreement or consensus
Consensus is a marketing word
FOLLOW THE MONEY
John Kerry budget is to be said : 14 to16.5 million. He won’t give out much information to the public. https://nypost.com/2023/07/13/climate-czar-john-kerry-cant-answer-a-question-about-his-own-staff-let-alone-his-private-jet/
I don't know if my calculator goes that high............
The Fauci of Climate change.