President Obama again promoted the consensus myth that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is real, man made and dangerous. Where did this 97% myth arise?
John Cook, an Australian blogger, global warming activist and owner of “Skeptical Science,” a non-science political web site, promoted the 97% myth. Cook, who is not a scientist, and several of his like-minded cronies, allegedly reviewed about 12,000 scientific papers (the number ranges between 11,944 and 12,876, in itself a warning flag) and concluded, unscientifically, that 97% agreed on the concept of global warming.
It is important to note that Cook stated that 97% of the papers, not scientists, agreed. When Cook’s “work” was independently reviewed, only 65 of 12,000 scientific papers were found to have endorsed the notion of anthropogenic global warming, or less than one percent: a far cry from 97%. Further, peer review of Cook’s methodology showed that he omitted important skeptical studies.
Interestingly, the Global Warming Petition Project, led by Dr. Edward Teller, has 31,487 scientist signatures declaring, “There is no scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and environment of the Earth.”
Now that the 97% myth has been destroyed, why are members of the far left continually pushing this false narrative? Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change inadvertently admitted that the goal of environmental activists, who are conveniently radical socialists, is to change the economic model of the world not save the environment:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
In other words, the goal of the far left environmental activists, radical socialists, is to destroy free markets, capitalism, and replace capitalism with radical socialist central planning that has failed all over the world. Global warming or climate change is all about money and population control.
In his article, “On Global Warming, Follow the Money,” John Hinderaker of powerlineblog.com, documented that between FY 1993 and FY 2013, total U.S. expenditures on climate change amounted to $165 billion. The majority of the money goes to agencies and industries with a vested interest in promoting the fear of global warming/climate change. “One of the worst consequences of the global warming power grab by the U.S. government and others around the world has been the corruption of the scientific process, which has brought the discipline of climate science, and by association science in general, into disrepute.”
World-wide, “Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policy making,” reports Don Jergler, an analyst for Insurance Journal. “The $1.5 trillion global climate change industry grew between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession . . .”
Al Gore is a prime example of the political greed and cynicism present in the climate change industry. Since leaving politics, Gore’s personal wealth has increased to just under $200 million from $1.8 million. There is increasing talk of Gore becoming the first carbon billionaire.
The federal government, under Democrat control in 2013, spent twice as much on global warming ($22 billion) than on customs and border security ($12 billion). And the $22 billion went to fellow environmental activists and radical socialists, just like the green energy grants did. The false narrative always accompanies leftist cronyism.
Here is the truthful response to the false narrative. In the 1970s, environmental activists and radical socialists falsely claimed that if we did not dramatically reduce fossil fuel use at that time and use renewables instead, we would be experiencing catastrophe today. The exact opposite happened. Instead of using a lot less fossil fuel energy, we used more. Instead of catastrophe we experienced long-term improvement in every aspect of our lives. It puts a lie in front of the fossil fuel deniers.