We here at POM know that among climate scientists there is no 97% “consensus” that Earth is getting warmer and humans are causing that warming. But we can also see that a wall was being built around the propaganda spewing out of IPCC, NASA and other places. Soon to be used following the 97% thrust was the term “denier”.
97% serves a useful purpose in terms of propaganda – it signals to people who are not paying attention that the work has been done, case closed, no need to think or investigate. It’s a deliberate tactic used because the work has not been done, the case is not closed, and indeed people of intelligence need to think and investigate.
So, OK, we all know this. What is curious to me is how four “independent” researchers all reached the 97% number, supposedly unaware of one another. They are:
- Naomi Oreskes. Her research started with the assumption that IPCC conclusions were correct. She focused on the influence of climate change on the incidence of influenza, the lifecycle of frogs, etc.
- Maggie Zimmerman, a graduate student, a brief online survey to 10,257 employees of schools and government research agencies. She neglected to include 10,000 geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and astronomers also studying the issue. She based her 98% figure on 79 hand-picked responses.
- William Anderegg, a college student, identified over 900 scientists who had prolifically written papers about global warming. Skeptics, on the other hand, were far fewer in number and not so prolific. Anderegg failed to consider that government grants are directed at proponents of global warming, and not skeptics. Papers such as those considered by Andereggs were drawn to government money just like bugs to a streetlamp. As one person noted, “90% of scientists agree with people who fund them.” His conclusion, a natural consensus among informed scientists, was wrong.
- John Cook, a professional cartoonist, issued a report to the Global Warming Policy Foundation stating that 97.1% of the 11,944 scientific papers he examined “explicitly or implicitly suggested that human activity was responsible for some warming.” This claim is long debunked. One study found that only 41 of these 11,944 papers or (or 0.3%) took a stand on warming and human causes. (Interesting thing about Cook – he announced his 97% conclusion before doing his research! This tells me that he and the others were dispatched on a mission to generate that lie.)
I took the above from a book by Lynn Balzer. Exposing the Great Climate Change Lie. I changed and shortened his verbiage but wanted to be sure to give due credit.
I did a search for that book and the links to it on Brave, and noted that a while back I was given an opportunity by Google to allow its search results to supplement Brave’s. I declined, of course, but it appears a fait accompli. On page four of Brave’s results was a link to Balzer’s book. Virtually everything the three preceding pages of links was the opposite of what I was looking for, demonizing “skeptics” and deniers. It appears that Brave is as compromised as Google itself.
I just read a piece by Jeffrey A. Tucker in Epoch Times, How Your Search Results Changed. He goes into detail about how, just in November of 2022, Amazon.com had crushed the system by which search engine results were quantified and presented, saying we are now back to the 1970s when all our information came from three television networks. Read it for yourself.
For myself, I have never imagined we were in a golden era, and never thought that any search engine presents unbiased results. Something may have been done by Amazon in 2022 to make sure the cuffs are on tighter than before, but in my opinion, the Internet has not made us smarter or wiser. It just takes less work now to get hold of the same propaganda that was offered by libraries in the 1970s . (Libraries were sometimes used in the 1970s by people who did not watch the news given us by NBC, ABC and CBS. Very little has changed. The vast majority of the American public is in the dark as much as ever.)
Piece of Mindful 
I swear on a stack of bibles the phrase “97% consensus” is some kind of propaganda tool. When I was talking to the same friend I mentioned in the 9/11 post about Covid vaccines from yesterday, about their effectives in late 2022, he shot back “97% of doctors approve” of the vaccine, or whatever. That number stuck in my head, and I’ve heard it many times since. Do you remember the endless “4 out 5 dentists” approve some new toothpaste? Yeah that’s the brain dead “most physicians approve” tagline. What about the 1 of 5 that didn’t approve? In my experience as a scientists, if you get more than 1% dissention something is seriously awry.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if they used the same argument to justify doctors’ approval of smoking before they later demonized and penalized it. It probably went like “four out of five favor smoking for good health” or something to that effect. What do you think?
LikeLike
I used to love to look at old magazines from the 1940s and 1950s in my grandparents attic. I remember the smoking ads, I believe Lucky Strike, which had a doctor endorsing them: because it was good for the T-zone, which is some T you draw across your brow and down through your nose, like you sinuses. Deep inhales help best.
LikeLike
Interesting…. It seems they were doing the same kind of propaganda for smoking before it became taboo.
LikeLike
Bingo
When Smoking Was Just What the Doctor Ordered | The Saturday Evening Post
LikeLike
OK I was slightly off about the T zone. It was a Camels ad, and it’s the mouth/throat area of the handsome young lady, not the forehead nose. It’s the first ad in the list. I think I now understand why I’m harder to bullshit: because I used to read this stuff as a kid, and wonder at the stupidity of it all (the claims). And every advertisement is clear bullshit. Q.E.D. everything is bullshit.
Also I found several MAD magazines in that stash from the first few years of production, and I was thrilled how subversive they were, and also oddly sexy (lots of Betty Page type cartoon characters).
LikeLike
Lucky Strike ads also went overboard to suggest that it was impossible for their cigarettes to cause any form of throat irritation. To hammer this point home, they enlisted famous singers and vocalists like Antonio Scotti and Ernestine Schuman-Heink. But just eight years after her ad hit the presses, Schuman-Heink died from leukemia, another disease cigarette smoking has been linked with. Over a similar time horizon, Scotti began noticeably suffering from a clear loss of his vocal prowess, as if some mysterious force had begun to rapidly eat away at his throat. He lost his place on the Metropolitan Opera’s roster in 1933 and died in poverty in 1936.
Early Lucky Strike Ads Promised Smoking Would Inspire Great Feats of Strength, Heroism and Feminism (melmagazine.com)
So we can safely conclude Travis Kelsey and Taylor Swift are doing no harm in their promotion of Covid/Flu vaccines in ads airing during prime time football. Because there is no precedent for such a situation ever happening before. Within the last week it didn’t happen, so that’s pretty much forever.
LikeLike
Breaking news: Humans proven to have decended from sheep, not monkeys:
“Facts are irrelevant. What matters is what the consumer believes.” – Seth Godin
Smoking cigarettes gained popularity throughout the 20th Century until sales peaked in the mid-1960’s when it was estimated that over 40% of adults smoked cigarettes! In fact, by 1963 tobacco companies were selling so many cigarettes that on average each adult in America was smoking over a half-pack a day!
-Conclusion: by the 1960s most of humanity thought inhaling a strong agonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, causing mild nausea, temporary euphoria, permanent ruining of the smell and color your clothes, home, and skin, chronic irritability, along with emphysema and cancer is great fun and something good to introduce to your young friends.
LikeLike
It’s so reminiscent of vaccine propaganda, especially when it concerns certain injections like the Covid shots. The only difference is vaccines haven’t been heavily demonized by mainstream media & “science” (yet).
LikeLike
To follow up on that point, if any scientist critiques a result, 90% of the time they are correct, and found a flaw. The other 10% of the time they just missed something. Results are airtight, or they are not. If there is any doubt, 97% chance it was shitty or scamdalous science.
LikeLike
The dialectic on climate change/global warming was setup deliciously well by TPTB. On the denier side, for years, you had Rush Limbaugh, and the dreaded “Big Oil”. Therefore now, if you today attempt to discredit climate change, you are a “Big Oil” guy, or a Trump guy, or whatever Cro-Magnon conservative label. And speaking of conservative, who really belies Miles Mathis’ hypothesis that most new events point towards a blackwashing of the left, and resurgence on the right? I sure don’t. I can’t believe I would say this, but I’ve become as far to the right and a conservative as you can get. Why? Because 97% of new ideas suck (transhumanism?), or if they don’t suck they should be slowly introduced onto society, and because there’s no imminent danger of anything killing off humanity, like nukes or global warming, hasty policy decisions should be completely avoided. On the other hand, it would be nice if the populace woke up to fakery so we could stop funding the 80% nonsense of security and science projects that lead nowhere.
LikeLike
I think a better explanation of what’s going on is that they’re intentionally blackwashing both the left and the right to keep people divided and hostile towards each other. Hence the heavy negative press for both groups on all major political news platforms, which includes all the crazy feminists and right-wing “extremists” we see on said platforms. The same can be said for the “men/women-are-pigs” project or the “flat vs. globe earthers” saga. It all boils down to this principle: divide & conquer.
LikeLike
They have been indoctrinating kids for many years that if you don’t believe in magic, you are NOT cool, an outlier, and fit for mockery. I remember well the Duke of Doubt, who was mocked for not believing in the Burger Kings’ ability to do magic. If you think this is innocent fun, I politely disagree.
70’s Ads: Burger King Duke of Doubt Magic 1978 (youtube.com)
LikeLike
Try the same search with Yandex.com, Mark.
First result for me was a link to a Medium.com article containing download links to the book. Second result was a link to the Amazon.com listing.
I find search results are better when the search provider is based in a country that isn’t too deeply invested in the subject matter. Yandex is Russian, and Russia pays scant regard to ‘Climate Change’.
LikeLike
The fakeologist forums have a good thread on climate change with links, videos, etc. (It’s in the Psyops/ hoaxes subforum.)
Anyway, found this graphic there-
https://fakeologist.com/forums2/download/file.php?id=17168&mode=view
It shows mainly how much CO2 is naturally present in the atmosphere, and the tiny relative amount released by man.
My question for those more knowledgeable than I — how constant is the natural CO2 level? Does its variance exceed (plus or minus each year) the amount introduced by man? What are the main annual natural sources adding or subtracting CO2 each year? Does a large amount of it simply maintain at a fairly steady base amount?
On the face of it, the graphic (if accurate) seems like one of the more devastating blows against the credibility of manmade climate change. It seems to say, if “Man Bad,” then “Earth Bad Bad Bad.” Which is absurd – and even if it were true, then we might as well throw in the towel on “climate mitigation” since we’re outdone 100 to 1.
The only argument I could see them making is if they could claim that that little fraction of natural CO2 in the atmosphere was a rock steady constant, and that even man’s tiny contribution could unbalance it. But that seems unlikely, given the years when volcanic eruptions release a large amount. And if it has carbon sinks to reduce that back to some constant level, it would do the same for man’s contribution.
LikeLike
I have some empirical evidence that climate is not changing, at least here in New England. I’ve Lived in NE or upstate New York (many years ago) my whole life, and went outdoors to walk/hike/or bike nearly every day since 1975. So I always paid close attention to the weather, the skies, sunsets and sunrises, date of first frost (planting lots of veggies), daily temperatures, precipitation. I can say with confidence there has been no change in the climate in that period, especially since the 1980s. I remember there were some cold years in the 1970s, and it’s always cold until April 1, then starts to slowly warm up, with a late snowstorm in early April, as we had this year. No change. Moreover, I went to Thailand every winter since 2017. This year was the coldest year, by several degrees. I typically don’t even pack pants or a jacket for December/January, but I was freezing my ass off in Cheng Mai (40-50F early mornings).
LikeLike
Yes but what about the meme/ my questions.. oh well, happy to give you a jumping off point for your tangent, lol
LikeLike
Anecdotal but in line with my experience living in Montana for 59 years.
LikeLike