Remember those 11,000 climate change scientists declaring an emergency? While this regurgitated mainstream media headline is pretty cut and dry, the claim it makes is patently false, we’ve now learned.
According to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, some of his “buddies” over at the group Power Line were the first to discover that these 11,000 so-called “scientists” aren’t actually scientists at all, despite what fake news media outlets like NBC, CNN, The Guardian, and Al-Jazeera continue to claim. The story says that it was just a website collecting names from academia willing to sign a petition. Notice that you don’t hear too much about this anymore – but the flash FAKE NEWs did their job.
We went a little further to get closer to the source of the claim. It came from a group called BioScience – here is their report. You have to pay to get the actual list of the 11,000 scientists, but we will give it to you here in case it disappears … Though many could be, the 11,000 scientists are not all scientists or even climate scientists. There are other lists of folks that oppose the climate change crisis that actually have better credentials. If you want to play battling science polling, here is a more breakdown analysis of various climate change claims.
Let’s look at what some past leaders in this climate change movement have said (yes there is an agenda – facts be damned):
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC‘s fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said that:
the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Christine Stewart, Canada’s former Minister of the Environment said:
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. … Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Tim Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and the person most responsible for setting up the Kyoto Protocol said:
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Even Pope Francis weighs in on the climate change story as he considers introducing a new “ecological sin” in a bid to battle climate change into religion. The Pope said it’s “a duty” to introduce new sin to protect “our common home.” A bishops’ assembly was held last month addressing Amazon’s environmental dangers.
John Stossel is just so great at debunking myths. He took on the myths surrounding climate change in a terrific video:
Those in the climate change cult believe that conservatives are climate change deniers – coming up with all kinds of silliness. To be clear what the majority of conservative’s view on climate change:
- Climate has always been changing – heck there were glaciers in Missouri 500,000 years ago.
- Man does affect the environment. The question is to what degree and to understand the actual causes.
- And if it is an issue, what would be the proper response – a New Green Deal that reads like a Marxist manifesto?
Charts and more charts – every one of these climate change alarmists’ reports have loads of charts (sometimes not) that try to explain the emergency. But when looking at them, they often don’t pass the common-sense approach.
They often cherry-pick data, compare apples to oranges, and are not correlated in a correct time-series – all to snow people. We are NOT climate scientists, but it is people like us that will have to buy into this climate emergency. So if you want to convince people of an emergency on this subject, do less political science and do more real science. Don’t scream and yell with pussy hats on your head, trotting out child actors to speak on your behalf.
Making a more common-sense approach, we looked at the data – see the insert chart of data gleaned from various reports of various global phenomenons and then scaled to a multi-millennial time frame (using a highly scientific tool called Microsoft paint … Where is the correlation?
I see correlations of the population growth to CO2. Maybe geomatic field intensities, though it is showing it is getting colder, not hotter – perhaps a campaign to reduce body mass to reduce gravitational pulls … But I see little correlations to global temperatures. You don’t like our charts? Neither do we, but when scouring the internet, it is hard to find sensible data that is similar to what we have shown that proves the case.
Here is the bottom line, if people don’t believe your crisis, you simply have not done your job to explain it. Or it’s a hoax for an agenda of some type. So stop the emotive comments and provide proper data proofs – if you can.