March 11, 2019 by Cristina Valenzuela
In today's ridiculous battle over "real news" versus "false news" media liars established all claim that climate change is a perfect example of how the "false news" continues to interfere with true facts.
Again and again they say that 97% of scientists agree on climate change by man, and therefore anyone who disagrees is obviously a shovelful of "false" news.
But wait a second. Where really is the claim of "97%"? Yes they repeated a lot. Is it a legitimate representation of science?
The author Mark Steyn, immersed in that question in the search for a more authoritative answer. I wanted to find out what is true and what is false when the media tell their stories.
What he discovered was both fraud and deception by the propagandists of climate change compiled an entire book on the subject entitled A disgrace to the profession .
Here's an excerpt that explains the shocking intellectual fraud behind the claim "97% of scientists":
An opinion poll of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by RK Margaret Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.
Apart from its support of Dr. Pantsdoumi, Mann often said the approval of the "established science": 97 percent of the world's scientists supposedly believe in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requires massive government intervention.
That percentage is derived from a survey conducted by a thesis by MRK Zimmerman.
The "survey" was one of two questions, the online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of which [only] 3146 respondents .
Scientists who responded, 96.2 percent came from North America.
Only 6.2 percent came from Canada. So America is overrepresented even within this sample of North America.
Nine percent of respondents in the United States are in California. So California is overrepresented not only within the US sample: has more than twice as large a part of the sample, such as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa together.
Ten percent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 percent.
Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers selected 79 sample and declared "experts".
Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 percent were found to agree with "consensus". That's where it comes from 97 percent.
So this is a "reconstruction" of Michael Mann: As a couple of Californian pines can determine the weather for a millennium, so a couple of dozen of California scientists can determine the consensus of the world .
However, compilers also invited comments from respondents and published in the appendices.
In terms of specific scientific material, hockey stick attracted three commentaries - one with positive smoothness, the other two not so much.
Well, that means the number consensus 97% comes from only 75 scientists were collected from a survey by email?
Yes. Of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected for the survey climate change that each organization of mainstream media news cites as fact.
Not the "established science" who have told him, right? In fact, it seems rather poor quality.
However, this is the kind of propaganda that passes as "real news", while anyone who questions the claims of the obviously flawed science says is "false news".
So if "real news" is based on responses from a group tremendously distorted and misrepresented by scientists whose responses were compiled by a change "scientific" pro-climate that obviously alters the answers to suit your own subjective beliefs, ... first instead, how solid is the claimed authenticity of the news called as "real" authority?
Moreover, the idea that science is "settled" is anti-scientific.
Science is never really settled, because the heart of legitimate science is an openness to exploration, discovery and revolutions in new ideas that make obsolete the old ideas.
However, today, we are told by the Ministry of verifiers truth data and monopoly supplier of self-proclaimed "real news" that only their views are legitimate and no one else can even interrogate a "seated" set of beliefs .
"The consensus science" is not scientific by definition ... the reality is not decided by consensus of defective human beliefs.
Therefore, the focus of science claiming to be "approved" is, in itself, anti-scientific. Any set of alleged facts that can not withstand questioning, criticism or debate is not science at all.
However, stifle debate is precisely what the new brigade of "real news" is trying to achieve is the elimination of scientific dissent and alternative views.
