Page 2

Example 2: Global Warming Consensus Fraud

Global warming is hardly a subject of science. It is one of the most complex subjects science has ever studied, which allowed the propagandists to separate themselves from the objective realities very early on. The supposed scientific basis for the propaganda is computer models, which show anything someone wants them to show.

A large part of the fraud in this subject is in how it is presented to the public.

Scientific Consensus Survey

Here’s an example which supposedly shows a consensus of scientists but in fact shows the opposite. It shows how the subject has been railroaded at the starting point—the issuing of grants. It shows that bureaucrats only fund research which supports their agenda.

The public is told that nearly all scientists now agree that humans cause global warming by producing carbon dioxide. An example of what this claim is based upon is found in Wikipedia under Global Warming, Scientific Consensus or Scientific Opinion on Climate Change. Here's the Oreskes survey which is often referred to:

"In December 2004, Science published an essay [8] by geologist and science historian Naomi Oreskes [9] that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003..."

In the results of the supposed survey, 75% agreed with the claim that humans are the cause; 25% took no position; and none disagreed. What it really means is anyone who disagreed would not be getting a grant to study the subject. (How the Firing Works)

The peer reviewed literature is limited to grants which are almost entirely issued by bureaucrats of the federal government, and they do not fund research which opposes their warped agenda. Therefore, this type of survey tells nothing of scientific consensus.

It's extremely difficult to use statistics properly. The sample must be representative, and all causative influences must be identified and accounted for. Using published science to represent scientific consensus is a contempt for proper standards of statistics. And it was published in "Science," the world's most prestigious science journal.

On the same page of Wikipedia are the results of another survey which says this:

In 1997, the conservative advocacy group Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [11]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade.

This survey would not be a bold faced lie, as limited as it is; so it shows how fraudulent the other survey was.

Fraud is not as much about bold face lying as slight of hand, because it is too easy to get caught at lying. But when there is such total overwhelm of the subject, as with global warming, there is plenty of lying, such as the claim that ice is melting over Antarctica and Greenland, when two independent studies showed otherwise. Ice is melting around the edges of those land masses due to warmer oceans, but not over the land masses in general.