Facebook’s “Climate science center” Hypes “97% Experts Agree” Climate Alarmist Propaganda

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

Facebook’s “Climate science center” webpage (shown below) attempts to make its case by providing “Facts about climate change” vignettes that supposedly provide its best climate alarmist arguments on about 12 climate science topics with the first of these topics highlighting the central theme of the “cause of climate change” noted at the bottom portion of the photo.

The complete vignette for this lead “Facts about climate change” topic addresses the statement that “The cause of climate change is widely agreed upon in the scientific community” with that cause being the climate alarmist propaganda claim that “At least 97% of the published climate experts agree that global warming is real and caused by humans” as displayed below.

The Facebook description providing additional explanation allegedly in support of the “97% of published climate experts agree” claim can only be described as monumentally inept, completely incompetent and lacking any relevant supportive scientific specificity reads as follows:

“The myth that scientists disagree on climate change sometimes comes from misleading petitions that don’t accurately represent the climate science community. These open petitions typically include non-scientists and scientists working in unrelated fields. Among scientists who study and publish research on the earth’s climate, there is overwhelming agreement that human-caused global warming is happening.”

Professor Ross McKitrick (an expert in applied statistics that has led him to collaborative works across a wide range of topics in the physical sciences including paleoclimate reconstruction, surface temperature measurement and climate model evaluation in addition testifying on these topics before the U.S. Congress, making invited academic presentations and publishing articles in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Nature, Science and The Economist) provided a revealing article that exposes the extraordinary shenanigans behind the phony 97% claim that Facebook chooses to give such underserved prominence in its alleged “Facts about climate change” statements.

Dr. McKitrick notes the following key points regarding the phony fabricated derivation and use of the contrived 97% climate alarmist propaganda claim: 

“One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it.”

“But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.”

“In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up.” 

“The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.”

“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.”

“So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.”

“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.”

“It is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phony claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.”

The Facebook claims that “At least 97% of climate experts agree that global warming is real and caused by humans” and that “The myth that scientists disagree on climate change sometimes comes from misleading petitions that don’t accurately represent the climate science community” completely mischaracterize the politically driven shenanigans used by climate alarmists regarding the origin and fabrication of this falsely manipulated and specious propaganda claim.

Obamas flawed politically contrived utterances in 2013 about the phony “97% of climate experts agree” was not the first time he engaged in politically contrived and flawed climate science propaganda statements.

A 2016 article addressed Obama’s flawed misrepresentations of global sea level rise made during his 2008 Presidential campaign as follows:     

“In a May 15, 2016 Rutgers University graduation address President Obama told the assembled gathering (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/15/remarks-president-commencement-address-rutgers-state-university-new) that “in politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about.”

Yet Obama had told the country in his Democratic nomination acceptance speech on June 3, 2008 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/03/obamas-nomination-victory_n_105028.html) that we would be able to look back upon his nomination and tell our children that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”.

Besides the monumental hubris of this statement, it is apparent that President Obama was ignorant of the fact that the oceans have been rising for thousands of years since the end of the last ice age.

The rates of ocean sea level change have varied significantly over this time period with more recent studies showing greater detail of ocean sea level change information over about the last two hundred years. These changes in ocean sea level have occurred as a result of natural climate caused events as clearly shown in information (slide #36) from a presentation (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spe-curry-final.pdf) by Dr. Judith Curry regarding global climate science issues.”

NOAA tide gauge data shows the 115 year long Honolulu, Hawaii (Obama’s birth place) coastal location sea level rise trend measurement period with a stable rate of about 6.1 inches per century increase. President Obama’s claims that man made climate change was causing the oceans to rise and that during his administration “the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” was based on his ignorance of well-established basic climate science. As the President has said “It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about.”

In addition to ocean sea level rise data Dr. Curry also included self-explanatory labeled information in her presentation supporting the occurrence of natural climate driven behavior as a significantly contributing to the recent decades long global temperature increasing trend as shown in the graphs below from her presentation. 

The Democratic Party has been wrong for over 33 years now regarding its climate alarmism claims since it first started its politically contrived schemes to push its flawed climate alarmist agenda at the June 23,1988 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearings in Washington DC. A June 30,2021 article addressed these huge failures on the 33rd anniversary of those hearings as follows:  

“A detailed review of the testimony from that hearing after 33 years of recorded climate history reveals a litany of the hearings flawed and failed speculation, conjecture and predictions of climate outcomes establishing the fact that the hearing got everything wrong from start to finish and in fact represents a celebration of an extraordinary number of failed predictions.

At the time of the hearing some regions of the Midwest and Southeast were undergoing a severe drought which led many Democratic Senators and other “experts” to exploit this circumstance (as they always do with normal weather events including droughts in the U.S. West this year) and offer extensive speculative claims that the U.S. could expect additional droughts and heat waves in the future because of growing global CO2 emissions.

The 33 years that have passed since then have proven these Democratic Senators and “experts” to be wrong with EPA and NOAA data clearly establishing that the U.S. and global droughts have not increased over this period and neither have U.S. heat waves as shown by the data below as is the case for virtually every other climate area addressed at this hearing with the specific information following for each of these areas discussed in the material below.

Numerous Democratic Senators and “experts” claimed that the global temperature anomaly would climb by about 1.4 Degrees C by year 2021 from 1986 levels based on a NASA GISS climate model unless emissions were immediately reduced. UAH satellite measurements of global temperature which commenced in 1979 show that the global temperature anomaly has only increased since these hearings by 0.49 Degrees C by year 2021 nearly 3 times less than the flawed speculation at these hearings. The flawed NASA GISS climate model projections and UAH actual measured satellite data are shown below.”

“Democratic Senators and “experts” also claimed that the rate of coastal sea level rise would increase to 2.5 inches per decade with additional further increases occurring because of rising CO2. However, NOAA tide gauge data through year 2020 (33 years after the Senate hearings) establishes that the global average absolute rate of sea level rise is stable at about 0.7 inches per decade strikingly below the hearings exaggerated and proven to be flawed sea level rise claims. Additionally, NOAA tide gauge data at hundreds of coastal locations around the U.S. shows no change in the rate of coastal sea level at these locations as demonstrated by the longest U.S. tide gauge 164-year record at the Battery location in New York shown below at a stable rate of about 1.1 inches per decade. Again, the hearings exaggerated coastal sea level rise claims have been proven to be wrong.”

“Democratic Senators and “experts” claimed that increasing CO2 emissions would result in devastating reductions in global food production. After 33 years of history the data shows world record high food production levels of grains, wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, etc. as noted below. The exaggerated doomsday claims by Democratic Senators and “experts” at the hearing were again proven to be wrong.

The June 23,1988 Senate hearing on global warming based on 33 years of history has proven the hearings exaggerated claims to be flawed, false and failed. The 33-year birthday celebration by climate alarmist of this sorry event is in fact a celebration of global warming failures.” 

The Facebook climate alarmist “97% agree” claim is phony political rhetoric specifically intended to distract attention from the overwhelming number of significant well established climate data discrepancies and failures that do not support climate alarmism’s decades long campaign including the failure of climate models to predict accurate climate outcomes for more than 33 years, the decades long consistently exaggerated projections of global temperature increases by climate models, the decades long failed claims of increasing rates of coastal sea level rise with instead rates of sea level rise remaining stable, the alarmist decades long doom and gloom claims of failing global food production yet global food production instead has reached record high food  production levels, the failure to see extreme weather conditions including lack of increasing numbers and intensity of  heat wavesdroughtstornadoeshurricanesfloods, etc, etc. 

Additionally, the latest data released by the Center for Emergency Management updated database on U.S. disaster loses since 1990 shows disaster losses as a percent of GDP declining as shown below.

The contrived political climate alarmist “97% agree” scheme was fabricated at a time when the world’s developed nations still played a significant role in global energy use and emissions contributions, but that time has long past. 

The world’s developing nations (led by China and India) overtook and began leading global emissions contributions in 2004, overtook and began leading global energy use in 2007. By 2013 when Obama uttered his phony political “97% agree” slogan the developing nations accounted for 57% of all global energy use and 61% of all global CO2 emissions. By year 2020 the developing nations had increased their dominance in global energy use and emissions to 61% and 66.5% respectively with these majorities climbing yet higher in the future. The developing nations control future global energy use and emissions not the arrogant out of touch with energy and emissions reality climate alarmist U.S. Democratic Party politicians.

The “97%” phony climate political slogan fabricated by climate science incompetent politicians in the U.S. trying to bully the country into committing economic and energy suicide (which has now happened in the UK and EU energy cost and reliability debacle caused by excessive use of unreliable renewable energy) means nothing to the world’s developing nations who are in complete control of all growth of global energy use and resulting emissions with fossil fuel energy use dominating their drive to achieve huge future economic growth. These nations have no interest or intention of buying into the phony U.S. politically contrived climate alarmist campaign slogans. 

The real world energy and emissions political power of the developing nations was achieved with the failure of the UN IPCC COP26 cabal where the developing nations refused to agree to the developed nations fossil fuel reduction schemes that would hindered the developing nations future economic growth with this confab being a huge victory for the developing nations and a complete debacle for the developed nations unrealistic and scientifically flawed climate alarmist political propaganda campaign agenda.

The phony climate alarmist claims of a “climate emergency” made in 2021 in support of the COP26 failed propaganda cabal were further undermined by the most recent UAH global temperature anomaly data including the data for January 2022 which was the lowest January global temperature anomaly measurement for the last 10 years.

The UAH January 2022  temperature anomaly represents a period of 7 years and 3 months since the world has experienced any global warming as shown below.

This outcome is yet more embarrassing global climate data showing the absurdity of the climate alarmists phony hyped “climate emergency” claim.      

In April of last year just prior to the COP26 cabal in Scotland MIT Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences Dr. Richard Lindzen was invited to make a presentation at an Irish Climate Science Forum to address the need for changing the imaginary climate crisis and how that difficult task might be accomplished.

A summary of the key concluding points are noted as follows:     

“The Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) in cooperation with CLINTEL hosted a lecture by the world-renowned climate scientist Richard Lindzen.

Some key points from Dr. Lindzen’s regarding climate hysteria:

Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT”

“For about 33 years, many of us have been battling against climate hysteria

We have correctly noted:

The exaggerated sensitivity,
The role of other processes and natural internal variability,
The inconsistency with the paleoclimate record,
The absence of evidence for increased extremes, hurricanes, etc. and so on.”

“We have also pointed out the very real benefits of CO2 and even of modest warming.”

“And, as concerns government policies, we have been pretty ineffective. Indeed, our efforts have done little other than to show (incorrectly) that we take the threat scenario seriously. In this talk, I want to make a tentative analysis of our failure.”

“In punching away at the clear shortcomings of the narrative of climate alarm, we have, perhaps, missed the most serious shortcoming: namely, that the whole narrative is pretty absurd.”

Of course, many people (though by no means all) have great difficulty entertaining this possibility. They can’t believe that something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance.

“The same situation for climate (a comparably complex system with a much more poorly defined index, globally averaged temperature anomaly) is considered ‘settled science.’

“In case you are wondering why this index is remarkably poor. I suspect that many people believe that there is an instrument that measures the Earth’s temperature. As most of you know, that is not how the record was obtained.”

Obviously, the concept of an average surface temperature is meaningless. One can’t very well average the Dead Sea with Mt. Everest. Instead, one takes 30 years annual or seasonal means at each station and averages the deviations from these averages.”

If this weren’t silly enough, we are bombarded with claims that the impacts of this climate change include such things as obesity and the Syrian civil war. The claims of impacts are then circularly claimed to be overwhelming evidence of dangerous climate change. It doesn’t matter that most of these claims are wrong and/or irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that none of these claims can be related to CO2 except via model projections. In almost all cases, even the model projections are non-existent. Somehow, the sheer volume of misinformation seems to overwhelm us. In case, you retain any skepticism, there is John Kerry’s claim that climate (unlike physics and chemistry) is simple enough for any child to understand. Presumably, if you can’t see the existential danger of CO2, you’re a stupid denier.

That is precisely what the Paris Accord amounts to. However, the ‘something’ also gives governments the power to control the energy sector, and this is something many governments cannot resist.

Our task is to show the relevant people the overall stupidity of this issue rather than punching away at details.

“Whether we are capable of effectively doing this is an open question.” 

It seems clear from Dr. Lindzen’s presentation that he and those many other accomplished climate scientists working with him hold the entire concept of scientifically flawed climate alarmism to be nothing but politically contrived “stupidity.” 

5 27 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
February 7, 2022 6:07 am

Over 97% of climate scientists* agree with those who fund them.

*GIGO computer gamers and tricky decline hiders

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 6:49 am

Boom, you beat me to it. They will ALWAYS go with whatever fills their rice bowl.

Curious George
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 7:16 am

In absolute numbers, 97% is 75.

Reply to  Curious George
February 7, 2022 7:53 am

Beyond that, agreeing that the the world has warmed by a small amount over the last 150 years is not the same as agreeing that CO2 is gonna kill us all in a few years.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
February 7, 2022 9:04 am

I would have answered Yes to Doran and Zimmerman’s Question One, but not #2. The world has warmed a bit coming out of the Little Ice Age, but not mainly due to human activity. The global improvement is well within normal natural variability.

Had there been a third question, I’d have replied that so far more warmth and plant food in the air have been beneficial to plants and animals. Also probably to fungi, cyanobacteria and algae.
I would have answered Yes to Question One, but not #2. The world has warmed a bit coming out of the Little Ice Age, but not mainly due to human activity. The global improvement is well within normal natural variability.

Had there been a third question, I’d have replied that so far more warmth and plant food in the air have been beneficial to plants and animals. Also probably to fungi, cyanobacteria and algae.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 9:33 am

If I remember right, question #2 didn’t ask if the warming was mainly due to human activity, but rather did human activity play a part in the warming.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
February 7, 2022 9:41 am

“Has human activity significantly contributed to change in global mean temperature?”

“Significant” might well mean less than 50%.

Reply to  MarkW
February 7, 2022 9:44 am

Actually it asked if humans played a “significant” role.
To a scientist factors are either insignificant or significant. Anything that’s insignificant is too small to affect the results and can be ignored. Everything else is big enough to impact the results and has to be accounted for.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 10:47 am

No one can answer the second question.
It is irrelevant

No one knows exactly, or approximately,
what percentages of the warming
since the late 1690s coldest decade
of the Maunder Minimum period
was natural versus man made.

Any question that no one
is qualified to answer
just collects irrelevant
data-free opinions

John Tillman
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2022 11:07 am

IMO it’s safe to say that the human contribution globally has been negligible. Locally, it has been observed and is measurable, in UHI effects, from irrigation, other agricultural activities, forestry, land use changes, man-caused wildfires, heating and cooling, just there being eight billion rather than 500 to 700 million of us, each consuming more energy, etc.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
DD More
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 12:37 pm

Take all three of the 97% surveys, it was 5 questions.
Just the questions and responses.

Using Cook et al.2013 , Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 & AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014 as basis to the 97%. 

So answering the questions – 
1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic? 
2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 
3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?

Answers and questions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere? 

Do these questions really provide the answer that; stopping man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more], which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will actually keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?

And as to the “Fact Checkers”, remember Facebook’s response to Stossel legal challenge, it argued in court, well, that’s just protected opinion under the First Amendment.

George Daddis
Reply to  Curious George
February 7, 2022 9:57 am

75 culled down from 10,000 requests for response from a list of “geoscientists” selected by the study authors (Doran & Zimmerman ) with 3000 actual responses. Those responses were sorted and resorted until they were left with only a very specific group* that confirmed their pre-announced purpose – to prove that Oreski’s WAG of 97% of studies showed CO2 caused dangerous temperature rise.

(* those with the actual title of “Climate Scientist” – IOW those whose jobs depended on the hypothesis being accepted.)

John Tillman
Reply to  George Daddis
February 7, 2022 10:02 am

Not even all “climate scientists”, but only those published recently.

Rick C
Reply to  Curious George
February 7, 2022 11:53 am

Where is the list of “Climate Scientists” that support the man-made and dangerous claim? I can’t find one, but I can find a list of nearly 500 prominent skeptics at Desmog.org that includes many well known and highly respected climate research scientists. Those who frequent WUWT will recognize most of them. The fact that Desmog.org contains bogus ad hom attacks on them just demonstrates the alarmists inability to mount a challenge based on scientific evidence.

Jimmy h
Reply to  Rick C
February 8, 2022 8:19 am

There is two lists. One with alarmists which has 11,000 signatures.

Another skeptics list has 32,000 signature. It’s called the Oregon petition. The top search results are Wikipedia and desmog bashing it.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 7:31 am

All these alleged “crises” were pseudo-scientific scams concocted by the extreme left”.
–         The DDT ban circa 1972 – Rachel Carson was one of the great killers of the 20th Century, alongside Stalin Hitler Mao and Pol Pot. Malaria deaths among children ~doubled thanks to that psycho.
–          The Ozone Protection of the 1970’s-1980’s was another scam – fortunately all it did was waste billions of dollars in discarded refrigeration systems and coolants.
–         The climate scam started in the 1970’s–1980’s is another scam that we still tolerate – and has cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives, especially in the developing world.
–         The Covid-19 scam of ~2019 continues through today, and has killed millions and wasted trillions, and will continue to do so because of the toxic and ineffective “vaccines”.
These are all crimes against humanity, and there is little point in continuing to debate the phony science ad-infinitum.
It is now time to bring these murderers to justice – Nuremberg 2,0 starts now.

John Tillman
Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2022 8:57 am

“Nuclear winter”.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2022 9:34 am

Acid rain

Reply to  MarkW
February 7, 2022 10:49 am

All rain is acidic.
So what?

George Daddis
Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2022 10:07 am

The Chemical Scare: Love Canal was a real local disaster that deserved and got attention and local remedial action. But the activists used the example of a “real” problem to create a nationwide hysteria that impacted perfectly safe operations across the country with “guilt by association” – i.e. the firm produces chemicals.

Reply to  George Daddis
February 7, 2022 11:17 am

Love Canal was only a problem because the local government decided to allow building atop a toxic waste disposal site. The company that owned the site fought the government and lost. But they were still required to pay for the clean up.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2022 11:21 am

Paraphrasing here. Menacing hobgoblins all. Fear is the most powerful motivator. False promise of safety is a fool’s game. As Barnum noted there is an ever replenishing supply of those. And the worse part is, as Twain observed, that once fooled the citizens is all but lost because it is very difficult to convince the fool that he has been duped.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 7:51 am

The trick is to declare that only those who agree with the “consensus” are climate scientists.
Everyone is unqualified, even if they have more and more relevant degrees and experience compared to those who are part of the “consensus”.
Either that or they are in the pay of big oil, even if they have never received a dime from big oil, and despite the fact that most of those in the “consensus” would lose their well paying jobs if the “climate crisis” ever went away.

George Daddis
Reply to  MarkW
February 7, 2022 10:13 am

As noted, Doran and Zimmerman worked the scam from the other direction. Out of 3000 actual responses they eventually only “qualified” answers from those with Climate Science in their title and who recently published a “Climate Science” article.

(Paraphrasing an old saw – hard to disagree with an assertion if your job depends on it being true.)

Reply to  MarkW
February 7, 2022 10:52 am

But the subject of “climate change” is not science
Science requires data.
“Climate change” is predictions of the future climate.
There are no data for the future climate,
or future anything else..
Just unproven theories and speculation.
That adds up to climate astrology.

Consistently wrong predictions of climate doom
are not real science, even if bellowed by hysterical,
arm waving peoplewith science degrees.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2022 12:25 pm

Even worse … there is no global climate. The term is an absurdity. By definition climate is a local condition over time. There are climates that have had no significant change for centuries.

“Climate change” is intentionally equivocal.

John Tillman
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 7, 2022 12:50 pm

Global climate does exist. The word “climate” did originally apply to typical weather in a region, but the world does have climate states, ie Ice Houses, Hot Houses and Goldilocks Houses.

Within Ice Houses, there appear to be three states, ie glacial maxima, glacial and interglacials. Interstadials might be a fourth state, or just considered a repeated feature of glacials.

Extreme hothouse conditions generally aren’t cyclical, but driven by irregular events. But normal Hot House fluctuations also exist. Cooler periods in Hot Houses follow the same celestial cycles as major glaciations during Ice Houses.

What would have been an Ice House during the Mesozoic was stillborn by prevailing Hot House conditions. But the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous were noticeably cooler than intervals preceding and following them. This cold snap influenced feather evolution.


Also from Scotese, but with more detail, from two years earlier:

comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 1:08 pm

Wish that Dr. Scotese hadn’t felt the need to tack on a putative future 5-degree spike, even with a question mark.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 3:16 pm

Thanks again, John. That was very helpful. It makes their current use of “climate change” even more equivocal and out of context. You’re describing some very longer time frames and far more noticeable events than those used to describe human caused “climate change”. It’s another scale altogether.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 9:56 am

FB down more than 40% from its September high, and still falling.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 1:11 pm


John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 8, 2022 10:49 am

Too bad I didn’t short FB in September. It’s down 43% from its high then.

Covering today would yield a 76% gain in five months.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
Tom Halla
February 7, 2022 6:07 am

Good summary, but was the 97% claim from Cook, or Oreskes? Both are quite flawed, but different.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 7, 2022 6:54 am


The figure comes from Doran and Zimmerman, 2009, who reported that of 79 “actively publishing climate scientists” among over 3000 respondents to their survey, 77 answered both their questions and 75 “Yes” twice. Hence, 97%.

The questions were: has the world warmed since 1850, and is this warming mostly man-made? There was no third question, ie is this warming dangerous?

Of course the other 3000 government and academic scientists answered “No” at much higher rates than the “active climate scientists”. Geologists and meteorologists were the most skeptical. No private sector scientists were included among the more than 10,000 contacted.

So the claimed “97% of all scientists” is shamelessly bogus.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 7:31 am

And CO2 was never mentioned.

oeman 50
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 7:45 am

Good citation, Tom. They sent out 10,000 survey’s online, got 3,000 responses, and then tortured the results until they got what they wanted. In no way did that final 79 responses represent all climate scientists, not even close. And that 97% has been the magic number since then and they will construct their study to get there no matter what.

John Tillman
Reply to  oeman 50
February 7, 2022 9:59 am

Plus, the media turned 75 active government and academic “climate scientists” into “all scientists”.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 9:35 am

The second question was not “is the warming mostly man-made”, but rather did human activities play a role in this warming. No mention was made as to the fraction of responsibility.
And “activities” encompasses a lot more than just CO2.

Last edited 1 year ago by MarkW
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 7, 2022 7:21 am

The Cook 97% is a hoot and likely correct. He looked for journal article abstracts that said humans have nothing to do with GW. That is an extremely strong and unwanted claim so it is amazing that he found 3%. That most scientists think we likely make some contribution, possibly tiny, then got reported as 97% believe humans are causing GW, which while true is very misleading, because it then morphed into humans are causing all GW.

Reply to  David Wojick
February 7, 2022 12:28 pm

The Cook 97% is a hoot and likely correct.

I recall reading that for at least one of those claimed to “support” the thesis (one of the 97%), the author explicitly stated that his position was misrepresented in that paper.

Pieter A Folkens
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 7, 2022 9:47 am

One of the early Orsekes consensus papers was about sea-level rise. She cherry-picked a cadre of sea-level scientists that fit her intent but omitted a near equal number of sea-level folks who did not fit her bias. I plotted both sets of predictions for sea-level rise in a talk at the Society for Marine Mammalogy back in the mid-90s. There was no overlap whatsoever between Oreskes’ group and an equal number of published sea-level scientists she omitted. As of two years ago, the actual observed sea-level rise came in right at the mean of the predictions from the group Oreskes omitted and her choice of predictions was so off as to have no statistical relevance at all. Yet we continue to hear the fear-mongering of multi-meter sea-level rise by the end of the century.

Curious George
Reply to  Pieter A Folkens
February 7, 2022 1:55 pm

What century?

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 7, 2022 10:55 am

Surveys all start with the 97% conclusion.
Then find some way to add up numbers to 97%
That’s leftist style “science”.
Just like the IPCC started with the assumption
that climate change was man made and dangerous,
so they predicts that every few years
like trained parrots.

February 7, 2022 6:17 am

97% of investors are seeking a way out of FaceBook shareholding

John Tillman
Reply to  LdB
February 7, 2022 6:58 am

Dropping again in pre-market. Liable to take out Thursday’s low.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 8:59 am

Just broke through prior low of $230 to $226. High was $384.

Allan MacRae
February 7, 2022 6:21 am

More global warming…

Do I really have to say “sarc/off”?

February 7, 2022 Cap Allon
The COLD TIMES are returning…


February 4, 2022 Cap Allon
You CAN question authority, folks — it’s actually your duty as a citizen to do so…

February 3, 2022 Cap Allon
Simply: prepare.

February 2, 2022 Cap Allon
…such as pronounced plunge of polar cold is astonishing — and despite narrative-advancing cries of ‘Climate Change’, the real culprit for such a southerly dip in the jet stream is low solar activity.

John Tillman
Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2022 9:49 am

Arctic sea ice extent above the past 12 years. Tied with average for 2001-10.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
February 7, 2022 6:21 am

“How much do you know about climate change?
Answer a few questions based on the IPCC’s latest report.”

How much do you know about climate change?
Answer a few questions based on junk model science.

“True or false? Earth will experience unprecedented extremes because of climate change”.

Answer false – because it obviously is – and it’s the wrong answer. Facebook says it’s true.

“The myth that scientists disagree on climate change “

They – again – obviously do disagree. You can be wedded to the cause yet differ on your level of honesty and integrity. Those with neither, like Michael Mann, place scientific integrity at the bottom of their priorities. It is the fig leaf for their socio-political thinking.

“Fortunately, there are paleontological findings that enable us to get a reasonably realistic notion of the ups and downs of CO2 and temperature levels during the past some 590 million years.”

The IPCC CO2 Climate Narrative: A “Behemoth On Clay Feet” …Ready To Collapse – Watts Up With That?

Geologists, look out

“Geology needs to reinvent itself as we fight against climate change”


Better get on narrative…

Last edited 1 year ago by strativarius
Reply to  fretslider
February 7, 2022 1:16 pm

Yes, we need feminist geology.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 7, 2022 2:32 pm

And what is the thinking behind “feminist geology”?
A box of rocks.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 7, 2022 2:40 pm

I tought it was a push for transgender equity geology this month?

February 7, 2022 6:32 am

The chart showing The Battery, NYC sea level rise shows only relative rise. A GPS elevation gauge at the site shows that about half of the relative rise is due to sinking land at the location. This leaves The Battery true sea level rise rate at about 1.5 mm/yr which is what is observed worldwide when true sea level rise is measured from elevation-corrected tide gauge data. This rise rate of 1.5 mm/yr is also the estimated average sea level rise for the past 6,000 years or so from sediment and peat bog measurements along the east coast of the US.

Satellite-measured sea level rise is about 3 mm/yr – twice the tide gauge/GPS measured rise. Alarmists like to splice the satellite number to the tide gauge number at the point in time when the satellite measurements began and say “see, sea level rise is increasing.” Why the difference is unknown. I am unaware of any effort to sort the matter in the literature available to me, but I recall that Dr. Roy Spencer has speculated that the satellite number is off due to incorrect humidity adjustments to the measured number – apparently humidity affects the satellite radar returns.

February 7, 2022 6:32 am

But Facebook forgot to mention new climate leadership at the United Nations … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8hKJ_MMza8

Reply to  John Shewchuk
February 7, 2022 7:10 am

3 Countries, Russia, China, India, vetoed, rejected, abstained, voted no to the UN climate ‘resolutions’ .
Lesson : lead, follow or get out of the way!

It is a Multi-polar World, as the London Telegraph shudders :
Russia and China rise from their knees to challenge US dominance


Have not tried to post that Telegraph article at FB…

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
February 7, 2022 6:40 am

If anybody hasn’t seen it I like this presentation by Climate Discussion Nexus.


February 7, 2022 6:41 am

That is cruel and unusual punishment from the social media trust gang.

Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2022 6:47 am

I like Dr. John Robson’s video on the 97% thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw&t=24s

it’s gotten over a million views and almost 8 thousand comments

Last edited 1 year ago by Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2022 8:39 am

Can’t seem to find this video on youtube. It works from here but not at youtube.com

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  robert
February 7, 2022 12:40 pm

it’s 2 years old so you have to scroll way down on the full list of the channel’s videos: https://www.youtube.com/c/CDN_ClimateDN/videos

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2022 12:51 pm

or better yet go right to the channel’s home page: https://www.youtube.com/c/CDN_ClimateDN and it should be the first one

I just went to it on YouTube and it works for me.

Tom Abbott
February 7, 2022 6:52 am

I see where Barack Obama has recently purchased some waterfront property in Hawaii.

I guess he figures he has fixed the sea level rise “problem”.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 7, 2022 7:02 am

The sea knows where and where not to inundate

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 7, 2022 7:38 am

Barry is also building a big palace right the shore in Martha’s Vineyard.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 7, 2022 8:13 am

I’ve always been amazed how Democrat politicians like Barry Obama and Nancy Pelosi can save so much money on their relatively modest salaries…

Reply to  Graemethecat
February 7, 2022 8:32 am

It is a tribute to the virtues of thrift. They put each spare penny in A Little Tin Box.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 7, 2022 9:38 am

Barry and his wife were still paying off student loans when he was a Senator.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2022 12:41 pm

His second (or maybe 3rd) autobiography sold 19 copies at ~ $1 million per copy, I’ve heard.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 7, 2022 2:36 pm

Chicken feed!
He should take up painting.
(I wonder how much Hunter charges for lessons?)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 7, 2022 3:21 pm

His remarkable surge to affluence, post presidential years, is remarkable but not half as impressive as Al Gore. He went from roughly $1.5 million when he lost the run for pres. to $350 million plus within 5 years. That’s pretty impressive.

John Tillman
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 7, 2022 4:16 pm

Cuz oil-backed Al Jazeerah bought his almost viewerless YT channel for tens of millions. On top of his dad’s Oxy Oil millions.

Made worse because his Armand Hammer Oxy bucks came from Lenin.

Top hypocrite of both the 20th and 21st centuries.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 5:45 pm

Don’t forget his position in the Chicago Carbon Exchange. In a few insider trading maneuvers, from buying large amounts on margin to get in, to selling short until it reached, I believe 15cents (from a high of 750 cents). It eventually reached 5 – 10 Cents when the European Exchanged took over. Gore netted a cool $76 million off that, which he rolled over into “Current TV”. Even Current TV, a rebranding of Canadian based cable network called NWI, was a scam with Joel Hyatt and Ronald Burkle … some very complicated fiddling went on with that deal. Of course Al Jazeerah wanted it. they had been looking for a foothold in the US for years. No one would have sold them Newsworld International.

The whole thing stank to high heavens. I don’t think Al Jazeerah as settled yet with Gore.

jeffery p
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 7, 2022 8:25 am

Pay attention to what people do, not what they say. Would any of the alarmists buy waterfront property if it was going to be underwater anytime soon? No, of course not. Did any of them get discounts because global warming is going to put their property literally underwater? Has the value of oceanfront property plummeted to reflect these alarmist risks? No and no.

Last edited 1 year ago by jeffery p
February 7, 2022 6:58 am

The problem for Facebook is that they have admitted that their fact checks are only constitutionally protected opinion rather than asserted facts. WUWT

The question is, then, whether they can continue to censor stuff based only on opinion.

Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2022 8:04 am

I think the answer is they will

Reply to  fretslider
February 7, 2022 9:01 am

Stossel is asking for a million bucks. If he wins, I’m guessing Facebook will become a lot more careful.

Stossel says he was misquoted and that it caused him reputational harm and that the defendants should have taken due care to get their facts straight. link

Of course, what Stossel actually said doesn’t come under the gamut of constitutionally protected opinion. What he said is a matter of public record and easily checked. Putting words in his mouth is just a straightforward lie or at very least negligence.

Reply to  fretslider
February 7, 2022 10:12 am

I take back my previous answer.

The bleeping idiots have gone after an obscure little blog called the British Medical Journal. link

Richard Page
February 7, 2022 7:00 am

It’s changed from a false propaganda claim into a fairly meaningless meme now. I say play FB at its own game – bombard FB with picture memes replacing the caption with a silly ‘97% of climate expert’s agree…’ and then some punchline – it’ll subvert their narrative after a while! “97% of climate expert’s agree that Han Solo shot first!” and so on.

Reply to  Richard Page
February 7, 2022 8:07 am

Or 97% of experts claim Oswald was alone.

John Tillman
Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 9:35 am
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 10:05 am

See JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone’s new movie.
Oswald did a lot of things, was not even in the building. He, as his last words, was a patsy. Biden has delayed document release promised by Trump, again.

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
John Tillman
Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 10:17 am

Yet another pack of lies crockumentary.

Oswald was a Commie.

That he talked with KGB agents in Mexico days before the assasination is a fact. That he previously tried to k!ll MG Walker is a fact. That he k!lled Officer Tippit is a fact.

That he wasn’t in the building is a blatant, preposterous lie. He was confronted by an officer in the lunchroom, and seen by many employees there. Besides all the forensic evidence:


Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 10:42 am

Not up to date I’m afraid – the 97% consensus is wrong. Let the documents be made public….

Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 11:20 am

The documents have been made public.

John Tillman
Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 12:06 pm

Nothing has negated the eyewitness testimony of Oswald’s fellow employees.

The documents released last year confirmed that Oswald was a KGB asset.

Those which Biden is withholding will show how the CIA screwed up, not that it was behind the hit. The State Department also somehow failed to forward its information from Oz to DC in time to alert the SS to an inceased threat to JFK from Khrushchev.

Nikita had already bumped off anti-Communist UK Labour Party leader Hugh Gaitskell in order to put KGB agent Harold Wilson in Downing Street. And he had another asset serving as Canadian PM, Lester Pearson. And Willy Brandt’s top advisor was another KGB agent.

The West was deeply infiltrated in the 1960s.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 10:52 am

From the 2021 docudump article:

“An anonymous tipster warned US embassy officials in Australia a year earlier that Kennedy would be assassinated by the Soviet Union for a $100,000 bounty.” That’s about a million 2022 bucks.

Oswald’s plan was probably to flee to Mexico, where he had met with the Soviet ambassador, thence to Cuba or back to the USSR.

The KGB sent a fake defector to the US to persuade the CIA that the USSR had nothing to do with the hit on JFK, despite his being a Commie who defected to the USSR as a Marine signals specialist.

Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 11:09 am

more baloney

Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 11:19 am

Using Oliver Stone as a source?

Reply to  John Tillman
February 7, 2022 11:09 am


John Tillman
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2022 12:12 pm

That Oswald was a KGB asset is a fact, as shown by his meeting with Soviet embassy personnel in Mexico City and by phone and message intercepts with the embassy in DC.

Combined wiith two informants’ information provided in Oz, the most persuasive conclusion is that Oswald wanted the reward and to move to Cuba.

The KGB tried to cover up its involvement in the hit:


Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 11:09 am

Oswald was alone when he fired the shots.
Sometimes the consensus is right.
Not that consensus means anything in science.

Oswald’s motive was unknown at the time
but releases of CIA information in the past decade
show he was angry at being blocked from moving to Cuba.
I guess living in the Soviet Union wasn’t good enough.

I ignored this subject until the 50th anniversary and
then studied it for months, for an article in my
newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC.

I have high confidence Oswald acted alone.
but It is puzzling that he had generally admired
Kennedy’s civil rights record in Russia (which got
him in trouble) and in Dallas, for which there was a witness.

Oswald had a motive to shoot Governor Connally
who in another job had prevented Oswald from
getting an Honorable Discharge from the US Marines.
Not that such a decisions would deserve being shot at.
Oswald was a violent and wacky leftist.
Oswald carried a gun to work that day.
His gun did the killing.
The assassination is not that complicated.

John Tillman
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2022 12:14 pm

If his target were Connally, Oswald would have hit him in the head, not with a bullet that went through JFK’s throat, which was then deflected into the governor’s arm.

Oswald was an expert marksman.

What was his supposed personal grudge against MG Walker? Oswald was motivated by Communist ideology and greed, so that he could move to Cuba.

Your conclusion is ludicrous.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milo
NH Marine
Reply to  John Tillman
February 8, 2022 11:23 am

“Oswald was an expert marksman.”

He was nothing of the sort. Marine Corps shooting award criteria at the time were as follows:

Expert – a score of 220-250
Sharpshooter – 210 – 219
Marksman – 190-209

In Dec. 1956, LHO scored 212 (which is 2 points above the minimum for “Sharpshooter”.)
In May 1959 he scored 191, which is 2 points above failing to qualify at all. Hardly an “expert marksman”.

The “Marksman” rating in the USMC is held is such low regard that the badge itself is derisively referred to as a “pizza box” (which is a reference to its square shape.)

February 7, 2022 7:03 am

And in other news 97% of toddlers say broccoli and brussels sprouts are yucky. Holds the same importance as all this climatard stupidity. These grifters will say whatever will put money in their pockets.

Reply to  2hotel9
February 7, 2022 9:40 am

Well, I’m not back in nappies just yet, but I have never outgrown my distaste for many cruciferous vegetables (radishes and watercress are fine). My nose can pick them out the moment my wife tries to sneak them into the house.
I vote with that consensus. 😉

Reply to  2hotel9
February 7, 2022 11:11 am

I’m 68 and I agree.
I believe brussel’s sprouts should be banned.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 7, 2022 2:47 pm

I’m sure that someday they’ll find a text that says “thorns, thistles and brussels sprouts” came up after The Fall. 😎

February 7, 2022 7:18 am

No idea if Facebook also owns a “Corona Truth Center” to write about their view of truth.

they may be proven wrong as many other institutions.

Last edited 1 year ago by Krishna Gans
Steve Case
February 7, 2022 7:29 am

In the original Doran Zimmerman survey, Two questions were key:

Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Depending on the definition of “significant” and in the absence of a following question, “Does it represent a problem?” Most reasonable people would say yes, temperatures have risen and yes human activity is a factor.

So the survey was essentially meaningless in terms of proving that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is a problem and we must do something about it.

Reply to  Steve Case
February 7, 2022 9:41 am

The problem is that “significant” is undefined.
To some, it means major. To a scientist it means it’s big enough to affect the results.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
February 7, 2022 9:13 pm

To a scientist it means it’s big enough to affect the results.

In reality it means keep an eye on this variable and look for alternative means to validate (none have been forthcoming).

John Pickens
February 7, 2022 7:32 am

There has been an upward temperature trend globally since the Little Ice Age at the beginning of the 19th century. As this slow temperature increase is both natural and ongoing, why is any slight increase in calculated mean temperature for any month or year called an “Anomaly”? The anomalous temperature reading would be one of constancy or decrease.

Words matter, “Temperature Anomaly”, “Green Energy”, “Renewable Power”, “Carbon Pollution”. These are all terms of deceit and control, propaganda…

Carlo, Monte
February 7, 2022 7:36 am

Metafakebook needs to go the way of CNN.

John Tillman
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 7, 2022 7:54 am

It’s headed there. Its business model is broken and it faces competition it can’t answer. Plus government scrutiny around the globe. It might survive antitrust action by breaking up.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 8, 2022 6:41 am

Another new low this AM.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 7, 2022 8:04 am

In this race Bloomberg is currently way out ahead – it claimed yesterday for 30min that Russia had invaded Ukraine.
Could be a photo-finish. Popcorn, anyone?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 9:41 am

it did invade Crimea and other parts of Ukraine in ’14
or did Bloomberg say Russia just now invaded?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2022 10:12 am

BB put up a current ticker, apologizing later. Crimea voted to dump Kiev for Russia. If Nuland, Truss and 97% of their cronies disagree, that’s fine.

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 12:38 pm

Because part of a country decides to leave doesn’t make it legitimate. America had a civil war over such theories.

Richard Page
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2022 1:15 pm

Very true – having a referendum does not make it legitimate, as the people of Catalonia will vouch for. As far as I’m aware the Crimea referendum wasn’t a legal procedure and certainly hasn’t been recognised as such by anyone apart from Russia and Crimea.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Richard Page
February 7, 2022 1:20 pm

But… I can understand why Russia wants Ukraine- all of it back. It’s been part of Russia for centuries- and the Crimea has strategic value. But this isn’t the best way to arrive at that goal. It might try being really nice to Ukraine and seduce it instead. If Russia attacks- their economy will collapse.

Richard Page
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 7, 2022 3:09 pm

I don’t think Russia does want all of the Ukraine back – it doesn’t want Ukraine as part of NATO or part of the EU and it wants to keep the Crimean shipyards, but that’s it. Ukraine as a less corrupt, neutral country with ties to both the West and Russia would suit pretty much everyone I would have thought. As to being nice to Ukraine, the Donbass and Crimean situations were sparked by the pro-west government being violently opposed to Russia and the pro-Russian segment of their own country. I don’t think the situation can be remedied quite so quickly.

February 7, 2022 8:28 am

At some point, the smell of Animal Farm Pigs becomes hard to ignore. We’re getting there.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  philincalifornia
February 7, 2022 9:19 pm

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

February 7, 2022 8:29 am

John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Co. were amateurs compared to the modern era social media tycoons and their methods. I don’t think JD considered mind control and media control like this.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 7, 2022 9:45 am

I suspect they were working with the tools that they had.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 7, 2022 9:47 am

Standard Oil was never a monopoly. They developed a better process for refining oil and as a result was able to sell their product for less than their competitors could.
Some of the competitors went back to the lab, improved their own processes and were gaining back market share. Other competitors decided that buying a few senators would be cheaper and went that route.

Reply to  MarkW
February 7, 2022 10:59 am

Supreme Court in 1911 did not agree…

Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 11:22 am

The court followed the law. The law was bad. Do you really believe that judges are the final authority on everything?

Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 7, 2022 10:20 am

World Economic Forum co-founder (and later chairman) was a Canadian Rockefeller protégé named Maurice Strong. Ever hear of this guy?
Talk about mind control – Rockefeller is all over the place.

In 1961, Rockefeller’s Exxon (the Jersey Standard) recommended the U.S. State Dept. boycott Soviet oil. In late 1962, NATO embargoed exports of oil pipeline to the Soviet Union in an attempt to reduce Soviet oil shipments to Europe.

Sound familiar?

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 10:43 am

Rockefeller’s Dulles Brothers ran the CIA. Talk about mind control!

Reply to  bonbon
February 7, 2022 11:24 am

What? I thought the British ran the CIA. Or was it Wall Street ran the CIA?
Your fantasies evolve so fast it really is hard to keep track.

John Tillman
Reply to  bonbon
February 8, 2022 8:53 am

What connections did the Dulles brothers have to Rockefeller? Allen Dulles ran the CIA, but John Foster Dulles was Ike’s Secretary of State. The latter represented United Fruit Company, but I know of no work he did for oil companies owned by Rockefellers. Please enlighten me.

Hoyt Clagwell
February 7, 2022 8:50 am

When I heard about the 97% thing, I went straight to Snopes to see what they had to say about it. As far as I can tell, they never even addressed it. If there’s one thing I know about Snopes it’s this, if the answer doesn’t fit their liberal narrative, they won’t ask the question. That told me all I needed to know.

Clyde Spencer
February 7, 2022 9:28 am

To paraphrase Einstein, “Why 97% when it only takes 1 person to prove the CAGW skeptical position wrong?”

Pieter A Folkens
February 7, 2022 9:35 am

The 97% consensus is deliberate straight-up propaganda. It is the device known as “transference” (in propaganda terms) and “the appeal to authority” (in rhetorical terms). Either way, it is a logical fallacy that reveals the person developing the notion is up to something nefarious and the persons repeating it are useful idiots (formally defined as, a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause they do not fully understand and are used cynically by the promoters of the cause).

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Pieter A Folkens
February 7, 2022 9:43 am

unfortunately, it’s now part of the zeitgeist which will be difficult to root out- until people get tired of winter and/or they see their next fuel/electric bill

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Pieter A Folkens
February 7, 2022 9:25 pm

It’s also argumentum ad populum … the bandwagon fallacy and an appeal to common belief.

February 7, 2022 9:44 am

Quite recently I had come upon this statistical claim:

97% of what scientists claim, in time turns out to be wrong.

A corollary to this claim would be: If what scientists had predicted in the past was correct I would be living on Mars by today, oil reserves exhausted, 1 billion people dead from pollution by 2000, Antarctica is ice free, all polar bears dead, Europe uninhabitable, Europe is a desert, and so on and so forth.

Last edited 1 year ago by Alex
Old Cocky
Reply to  Alex
February 7, 2022 12:57 pm

and we’d have flying cars. Don’t forget the flying cars 🙂

February 7, 2022 10:42 am

All that information and charts in the article, yet not one statement on when the world will end from climate change, so how can we take this article seriously?
Also, one sentence in the article was much too long.
And several charts were not up to date.
Not that any of the charts matter.
They are history.
Climate change is about the future.
And the future climate is easy to predict with 97.836% accuracy.

We know, for a fact, that any change from the temperature
on June 6, 1850 at 3:05pm, in either direction, is a climate emergency.

So we are living in a climate emergency because it’s warmer than in 1850.

Is that not obvious?

It’s so hot outdoors in the summer that you could fry an egg
on the scalp of a bald man. That’s hot.

And we know for a fact that the future climate
can only get worse. So the only thing we need to know
is the exact date when global warming will end life
as we know it. And the author has failed
to provide that date.

February 7, 2022 11:17 am

For correct statistics it appears we have to go to China . It is not just Climate. I wonder what FB would flag this with ?

February 7, 2022 11:20 am

I have never used Facebook and Twitter for privacy reasons.

A few years ago it became obvious Facebook and Twitter
hate conservatives, Republicans, Trump voters and anyone who
supports free speech.

So even if you don’t care about privacy,
if you fit in those categories, why would you continue
to use Facebook or Twitter, considering they practice
fascist-style censorship? You would be part of the
problem of selected censorship, and not part of the

I am interested in hearing your “excuses”.
However, I don’t care what they are
— any conservative or libertarian
who uses Facebook or Twitter is
a total loser, in my opinion.

February 7, 2022 11:21 am

Of course, all 35 of these 97% scientists won’t admit is that climastrology is about as deterministic as Shrödinger’s cat.

Rod Evans
February 7, 2022 11:46 am

What is wrong with the Democrat Party or more correctly its brain? I only ask because how anyone and even less how any Democrat President could claim their rise to top Political figure would herald the end of sea rise begs the question. What is wrong with these people?
Obamas statement shown he had achieved his King Cnut status but without the reasoning power possessed by King Knut who knew he could not stop the oceans from rising!

Last edited 1 year ago by Rod Evans
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 7, 2022 6:05 pm

What is wrong with these people?

They qualify for Asnem, which is the inverse of Mensa.

February 7, 2022 12:15 pm

The bottom line is that it is completely inappropriate for a non-scientific media platform to pretend to serve as a referee in a scientific debate that is vastly far from settled. The job of Facebook is not to suppress content, but to provide an open forum for such dissent.

What are they afraid of?

FB is not only not a scientific organization capable of refereeing scientific debate – all science is always characterized by debate, or it wouldn’t be science, as described in the Scientific Method – but they are attempting to function as a religious organization, with an Inquisition to punish Heretics who dare to disagree with pronouncements from on high.

Last edited 1 year ago by Duane
Greg Alberta
February 7, 2022 12:50 pm

By the headline I assume the 97% of experts aren’t experts in climate but in goat roping or monkey spanking.

Greg Alberta
February 7, 2022 12:54 pm

You just have to look at the experts like Michael Mann for example. He paid out 1 million dollars to cover the court expenses and lawyer fees of a Canadian scientist that he sued for defamation over his “hockey stick graph”. Instead of producing his data for the court to review, he folded the lawsuit and just paid out the 1 million. Guess the data didn’t add up.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Greg Alberta
February 7, 2022 6:09 pm

Ya gotta know when to hold em and when ta foldem!

Mann tried to bluff and it cost him a $megabuck.

Charles E Garner Jr
February 7, 2022 2:11 pm

Interesting data from NASA regarding mitigation of heating due to global greening.


Gunga Din
February 7, 2022 3:00 pm

If the “97%” is true, based on close to 100% of the past climate experts’ predictions not coming to pass, then the “97%” of climate experts are wrong.

February 7, 2022 3:22 pm

99% and 98% make it look like you made the numbers up or pulled them out of your hat or somewhere lower down. However, 97% is the first prime number under 100 and so it looks rather scientific. You don’t need any facts to support it.

Linda Goodman
February 7, 2022 5:06 pm

The best remedy for repeated big lies are repeated big truths, but nobody’s trying.

February 8, 2022 7:36 am

And… FB stock price ended the day on Monday 5+% lower.

I’m thinking FB’s science center isn’t helping matters.

John Tillman
Reply to  H.R.
February 8, 2022 8:42 am

Down again today.

Eric H.
February 9, 2022 11:55 am

Whenever I hear somebody talk about the 97% consensus I always reply; “did you bother to read the papers?”. “Did you read any critiques of the papers?”
Always the same answer…

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights