January 2019
« Dec    

97% of Chicken Little’s friends agree the sky is falling

(Monday blog)

Ever since their infamous “Hockey Stick” graph was shown to be based on fraudulent data, the Himalayan glaciers didn’t melt as predicted and the earth stopped warming more than 15 years ago, the Warmists have been desperately looking for a new weapon with which to attack anyone who didn’t subscribe to their Man-Made Global Warming cult.

The Warmists found their greatest weapon of mass deception when some guy called Cook (or should that be “Crook”?) published a study claiming that about “97% of scientists agreed that Global Warming was caused by human activity” (Anthropogenic Global warming – AGW). There’s only one problem – Mr Cook was (IMHO) either a liar or a buffoon.

Mr Cook’s group looked through the abstracts of 25 years of articles about supposed Global Warming – they didn’t read the actual articles! Based on just a few lines of each abstract (not the full article), they classed each article into one of 7 categories ranging from articles that appeared to endorse the AGW theory to those that rejected it.

The results were as follows:

1. Endorsed AGW with quantification – 65

2. Endorsed with no quantification – 934

3. “Implicit” endorsement – 2,934

4. Uncertain – 8,269

5. “Implicit” rejection – 53

6. Reject without quantification – 15

7. Reject with quantification – 10.

Total papers included – 12,280.

Then Mr Cook’s group did something very clever/dishonest (delete as appropriate). They took out the 8,269 papers which didn’t take a position. That left 3,933 papers which possibly endorsed the AGW theory and just 78 which rejected it. So suddenly you have just 4,011 papers which expressed an opinion and of these 3,933 (97%) could be interpreted as endorsing the AGW theory. This is madness. This is an absurd abuse of all mathematical and scientific processes.

Let’s look at the figures another way. There were 12,280 papers discussing supposed Global Warming. Of these, a minuscule 65 (0.5%) endorsed the AGW theory and were confident enough to quantify by how much the earth would warm. Then there were just 934 (7.6%) which endorsed the AGW theory, but were not confident enough to make any numerical predictions about the expected warming. So, we actually have a pathetic 8.1% that explicitly backed up the theory of AGW. This is laughable! And it’s rather far away from the claimed 97%!

Then we have a big bunch – 2,934 scientific papers (23.9%) – which Mr Cook’s group (perhaps creatively?) interpreted as “implicitly” supporting the AGW theory. So in total, out of the 12,280 abstracts reviewed, a mere 3,933 (32%) explicitly or “implicitly” could be interpreted as supporting the AGW theory and the rest (68%) either didn’t express an opinion or else disputed the AGW theory.

So, to claim that 97% of scientists agreed that humans were responsible for supposed Global Warming is utterly ludicrous. As usual with figures used by the Warmists, there seems to have been blatant manipulation of the data to prove a point that the data didn’t actually support.

It’s a pity that none of the politicians and journalists who have parroted the “97% claim” bothered to look at the original figures as I have done.

But there’s one thing we can be sure of – at least 97% of the gullible idiots being produced by today’s Snowflake Indoctrination Centres (schools and universities) are utterly convinced that world-renowned climatologist Chicken Little’s predictions are correct.

4 comments to 97% of Chicken Little’s friends agree the sky is falling

  • William Boreham

    The Global Warming/Climate Change charade is based on false data:


    Problem is that our whole Parliament has fallen for the scam and passed the notorious Climate Change Act which will eventually destroy our economy and prosperity. Think expenditure on electricity for we consumers is high now? The real cost of a ’renewable’ policy have yet to kick in and we ain’t seen nothing yet.

  • PlugTheDyke

    Meanwhile the Snowflake Indoctrination Centres (schools and universities) have brainwashed their inmates that the World will end if we escape from the EUSSR,it will end for us if we DON’T get out now, No Deals, thats why we are leaving to rid ourselves of the Shackles.

    The Eurozone Is In A Danger Zone.

    It is easy to conclude the EU, and the Eurozone in particular, is a financial and systemic time-bomb waiting to happen.


  • A Thorpe

    It is the last paragraph which is most significant. The indoctination centres are effectively socialist brainwashing centres. The socialists have tried violence and war and now they are adopting equality and rights to promote their aims through peaceful means. A while ago Andrew Neil called the UK a heath service with a country attached. Now we have a communist style 10 year plan. I imagine that will work well. Michael Portillo said his greatest concern was increasing government debt because all parties were over promising. I put it another way. Decocracy and universal suffrage leads to socialism and socialism leads to slavery. Political parties only want power and so they promise more to get votes.


    Chicken Little Treason May and her BritishBullshitCorp arrange a “The Sky is Falling in” artificially staged(like Skripal) Traffic Jam to scare us about a No Deal Brexit Scenario. Treason May is so preoccupied with scare mongering on Brexit that here Russo Phobia stunts are on the back burner for now.
    Meanwhile her bosses in the United Snakes Globalist open border(Another of Treason Mays priorities , destroy Britain, a country without borders i’s a country its a Zone waiting for catastrophe, don’t worry it coming soon, one day at a time and is irreversible..Just what you need heading into a Recession who will look after YOU.Pensions, don’t make me laugh what do you think they used to prop up the falling(long way to go down in a bear market there wil be rallies before rsuming the downtrend comrades)Stock Market.



Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>